House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. Shipley will benefit from the £1.5 million allocated to Bradford through the Pride in Place impact fund. The Department has asked local authorities to engage with their local MP and a wider range of local stakeholders to shape delivery of the fund, and to report on that engagement.
Anna Dixon
A happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s £1.5 million impact fund for Bradford is critical to communities that have been overlooked for too long. I recently visited Windhill recreation ground in my local area, which is set to benefit from Pride in Place funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that after 14 years of brutal cuts to northern councils such as Bradford, this Labour Government are providing our local areas and communities with the investment they need?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents, which I saw for myself when I visited her constituency during the general election. She is right, of course: this funding is going to hundreds of areas that were the most left behind by the previous Government, so that they can take decisions about what to invest in and put pride back at the heart of the communities that the people there belong to and love.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
We are providing £3.6 billion of funding over the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, including £11 million for Newcastle through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant. Councils can use that funding flexibly to meet the needs of women in their area, which is vital given that, recently, 40% of homeless households were single women or women with children.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the increased investment in tackling homelessness in Newcastle, which is transforming lives. Homeless women are both more vulnerable and less visible. The Women’s Homelessness Alliance North East showed recently just how serious a problem this is. Through a proactive and concentrated survey, it identified 144 women sleeping rough—far more than councils were aware of at the time. Without accurate data, it is hard to plan effective support, leaving women at greater risk. What are the Government doing specifically to ensure that women’s homelessness is better measured, monitored and dealt with?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes the case for women’s homelessness and rough sleeping to be better understood. To improve evidence, we added an indicator on gender to the monthly rough sleeping survey, which we published in February 2026, but I encourage all local authorities to listen to the question that she just asked, to consider taking part in the women’s rough sleeping census and to understand that domestic abuse is the third biggest reason for homelessness. We need to act on this issue.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. To that end, we have begun the implementation of Awaab’s law, introduced a new, modernised decent homes standard, updated minimum energy efficiency standards and directed the Regulator of Social Housing to set new standards relating to the competence and conduct of social housing staff.
Mary Kelly Foy
In October 2022, a constituent of mine moved into a social housing property and immediately faced issues with extreme cold and damp. The issues went unresolved for so long that he referred his complaints to the Housing Ombudsman in April 2025, but it took until February this year for investigations to begin. Like everyone, my constituent simply wants a dignified life in a safe, comfortable property that he can be proud to call home. What are the Government doing to ensure that housing associations are meeting their requirements under Awaab’s law and that they have the resources to do so?
Matthew Pennycook
I am very sorry to learn of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. All housing association homes must be free from dangerous damp and mould. I note that her case arose before we brought the first phase of Awaab’s law into force on 27 October last year; now that we have done so, all social landlords are required to repair emergency hazards within 24 hours and to deal with dangerous damp and mould within fixed timescales.
Sarah Pochin
In my Runcorn and Helsby constituency, Riverside housing association is flattening 365 properties, demolishing them to build new homes. Residents have been left with no communication, no support and no number to ring—residents such as John and Barbara Wheldon, now in their 80s, who have lived in the same property for more than 50 years and are facing the trauma of that move without knowing where they are going. Will the Minister agree with me that housing associations have a duty of care to residents and that, where they fail in that duty of care, they should be held to account?
Matthew Pennycook
Social landlords are held to regulatory standards that are overseen by the regulator. I am sorry to hear about the experience of John and Barbara and others. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with details about the case, I will happily look into it.
Chris Hinchliff
More social housing is essential but, as Members across the House will know, increasingly distant housing associations are often far too quick to put up fees and far too slow to tackle damp, mould and disrepair. What more will the Minister do to ensure that future public funding comes with clear strings attached to require better standards for our constituents?
Matthew Pennycook
Registered providers of social housing, whoever they are, must address non-decency wherever it exists and must do so in a timely and professional manner. Where there are concerns that an RP is not delivering against the required regulatory standards, as I just mentioned, referrals can be made to the regulator, and the regulator has robust enforcement powers that allow it to take effective action when serious failings are identified.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Housing, including damp and mould, is a top issue in my inbox as MP for Woking. One of the key problems is the Conservatives’ unlawful removal of more than £4 million from the housing revenue account, which has resulted in a huge backlog of issues. What steps are this Government and this Minister taking to ensure that that does not happen again to add further woes to our social housing stock?
Matthew Pennycook
We are taking a number of steps to assist local authorities whose HRAs are under pressure, including the rent convergence introduction, which I know the hon. Gentleman is aware of, and all the other regulatory certainty and stability that allows local authorities, as well as housing associations, to plan for the future and invest in their existing stock, as well as building new social and affordable homes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I was delighted to confirm up to £20 million for central Luton as part of the expanded Pride in Place programme. The funding will give the community the resources and the power they need to drive transformational local change that will bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the area.
Rachel Hopkins
May I take a moment to congratulate Luton Town on winning the English Football League trophy yesterday at Wembley? I very much welcome the £20 million Pride in Place funding for central Luton, which will help to restore pride in our local neighbourhoods after they were left behind for so many years under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that decisions on how to use that investment to regenerate central Luton will be made by the community, for the community and to connect the community?
Steve Reed
I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most exciting things about Pride in Place is that the community themselves take the decisions about how the money should be spent. Of course that is the right thing to do, because they know best what needs to change to put pride back at the heart of their communities.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Any form of coercion at the polling booth is unacceptable and undermines confidence in our democratic process, as the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 makes clear. The Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and administrators to ensure that polling station staff are confident in challenging those offences.
Gregory Stafford
While Greater Manchester police has stated that there was no evidence of family voting in a recent by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported witnessing “concerningly high levels” of such activity on polling day. How does the Minister reconcile these conflicting accounts, and can she clarify how Greater Manchester police conducted that assessment, and particularly whether witness statements from the observers were taken into account?
Samantha Dixon
Greater Manchester police has completed its investigation and found no evidence of family voting. I thank the police for their careful and diligent work investigating this matter, as well as the Electoral Commission and the local returning officer for their support. As I said before, coercion in the polling station and other types of electoral offences are unacceptable and undermine confidence in our democratic system.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:
“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”
If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?
Samantha Dixon
We will continue to work through the Representation of the People Bill in Committee, through line-by-line scrutiny. I look forward to continuing that work with the hon. Gentleman, and we will discuss that then.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
On 19 March, we published a full impact assessment for the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also consulting on precisely how to introduce a ban on the use of leasehold for new flats, including in respect of issues such as scope, transitional arrangements and exemptions.
Blake Stephenson
Wixams retirement village in Mid Bedfordshire is a wonderful, integrated retirement community, but I understand from the sector and the industry that that business model is under threat from the Government’s leasehold reforms. Given the important role that these communities can play in reducing social care costs for our local authorities, and the fantastic option they represent for older constituents, will the Minister commit to look again at the specific impacts of leasehold reform on the integrated retirement sector, particularly to give stability and predictability to investors so that they can invest in future schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-judged question. Let me reassure him that the Government understand the distinct operational and financial models that underpin specialist retirement housing, and that we recognise the important role that integrated retirement community operators play in providing high-quality housing for older people. As he is hopefully aware, the way in which the retirement housing sector functions in a world in which commonhold is the default tenure, and whether some kind of exemption is required, are among the many questions we are seeking feedback on in our consultation on moving to commonhold and banning leasehold for new flats. I encourage him and any operators in his constituency to engage with that consultation.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his work on this issue. I am working to make sure that the managing agent Freshwater will meet me to talk about its service charges. Does he agree that it is important that managing agents meet representatives in order to tackle these high levels, and to ensure that they are prepared for this Government’s reforms? I also have a real concern about the impact of high service charges on the long-term sustainability of the leasehold model for people who are choosing to retire into leasehold properties.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. High and rising service charges are putting unprecedented financial pressure on leaseholders. They are also causing more and more issues with mortgages and remortgaging processes. On her point about managing agents: yes, managing agents absolutely should meet with residents who have concerns, either collectively or individually.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government appreciate fully the long-standing concern among park home residents about the requirement to pay site owners a commission upon the sale of a park home. On 5 March, we published a call for evidence in relation to the said commission payments so that we will have the information necessary to act and provide the clarity and certainty that park home residents and site owners have rightly been demanding.
David Chadwick
Park home residents in Brecon and Radnor, and indeed across the entire country, describe the 10% sales commission as a deeply unfair hit on their life savings, often amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. With the Government’s call for evidence now under way, what assessment has the Minister made of whether this charge is fair and whether residents are receiving value for money?
Matthew Pennycook
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to secure change in relation to this matter, and I can assure him that I share his eagerness to proceed quickly. Unfortunately, the research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive as to either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices, hence the call for evidence, which I hope he and park home owners in his constituency are engaging with.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s new call for evidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, park home owners across South Dorset continue to be deeply frustrated with the unfair 10% sales commission slapped on all park homes. The current system feels unfair as it punishes one group disproportionately. With that in mind, will the Minister ensure that park home owners are not forgotten and finally end this unfair 10% sales commission charge, and ensure that these reforms sit alongside wider reforms to leasehold?
Matthew Pennycook
I again emphasise that I appreciate the frustration among park home owners. Unfortunately, we do not have the evidential basis that we need to act. We will need to make a decision on the basis of evidence gathered through the call for evidence that is taking place, and then take into account the impact on park homes of all sizes to ensure fairness and transparency, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we will act once we have the information and evidence that we seek.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Because of the inconsistent and disproportionate practices observed, the Government have consulted on modernising and improving the administration of council tax, including its collection, and we will publish our response shortly.
Mr Charters
Working with the charity StepChange, we have seen that some councils are too often moving too quickly towards bailiff enforcement action. Would the Minister consider issuing best practice to councils to ensure that vulnerable households are supported instead of too often being pushed into further financial misery by overly aggressive enforcement action?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue on the Floor of the House and thank StepChange, through him, for its work. As I mentioned, we will have more to say in this area shortly, but as he will know, the Ministry of Justice is also involved in the issues that he mentioned, so I will work with Ministers in that Department, too.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Council tax is widely acknowledged to be a deeply regressive and unfair tax based on property values that are decades out of date, and the poorest households pay a much larger proportion of their income in council tax than the wealthiest. Rather than consulting just on better ways to collect it, will the Minister instead commit to review and replace this outdated and unfair tax with a system of taxation that is fairer and based on property values?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I have said, we will have more to say on this shortly, but when it comes to fairness, she will know that the Chancellor introduced a new charge for the highest-value properties, showing that this Labour Government are prepared to act when it comes to fairness.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Maximising rises in council tax underpins this Government’s entire approach to council finance. The Minister has admitted that no assessment has been done of the impact that this has on the cost of living for British households. As the Government send in the bailiffs to support their council tax maximisation strategy, will she assure the House that the Prime Minister has considered the impact of these huge council tax rises on working households?
Alison McGovern
I think that is a little bit rich given what we all lived through over the past 14 years. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, on average, Tory councils cost people more. I know that the best way we will ensure that council finances recover from the period of Tory austerity is to improve services, stop paying the cost of failure and help deal with the cost of living crisis.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Can I first say what a pleasure it was to join my hon. Friend on a visit to the new Pride in Place area at Enfield Wash during the Easter recess? Many places in phase 1 of the programme that have already announced their spending intentions have selected community spaces as what they will spend their money on. That is no wonder because community spaces are where communities can come together and take action and give their community the voice they need to articulate their aspirations for the future.
Feryal Clark
I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Enfield Wash in my constituency last week. After 14 years of Conservative cuts, Enfield lost around 60% of its funding, hitting vital services such as adult social care, youth services and our high street. Despite the cuts, Enfield Labour council has worked tirelessly to protect residents and support the most vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and our brilliant Labour council leader Ergin Erbil—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that we are into an election period, but we will have to shorten questions if other Members are to get in. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.
Steve Reed
I always agree with you, Mr Speaker.
Fair funding will provide a significant increase for Enfield council, in line with deprivation levels. The additional Pride in Place funding for two of the most held-back areas will allow them to take control of their own futures.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
In the Staffordshire county council area we have amazing community spaces, but they would benefit from additional investment, and Pride in Place would have been a great way to allocate it. Sadly, none of the local authorities in that county council area is eligible for Pride in Place, and the result feels a little like gerrymandering, but I am sure that that is not the case. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking afresh at whether there is any opportunity for Staffordshire not to be forgotten by this Government?
Steve Reed
Through fair funding, Labour is ensuring that funding goes where deprivation is highest. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), stood up in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasted about how the Conservatives were taking money away from deprived areas to use it for what I can only assume was gerrymandering.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Pride in Place funding in Dudley is being divided between two constituencies, risking the dilution of its impact. Given the high levels of deprivation among many of my constituents, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that communities in Dudley fully feel the transformational benefits of the investment and see tangible improvements? Will he meet me to discuss how we can crowd in funding?
Steve Reed
Of course, the most exciting thing about Pride in Place is that communities themselves, rather than politicians, make the decisions about how the money is spent. They will come together, from across the area that is benefiting from the funding, to decide what they want to do to put pride back into a place that had pride ripped out of its heart by the Conservatives.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There are real concerns that Pride in Place is just another example of this Government’s blind spot on rural areas. Groups such as the Rural Services Network and Plunkett UK warn that villages are being left behind. Key rural assets are disappearing fast, and Plunkett is calling for a targeted £10 million rural community ownership fund to help. What are the Government doing to ensure that rural communities are not left out again?
Steve Reed
Of course, the funding was distributed according to data provided by the indices of multiple deprivation, so it is going to the most deprived areas, wherever they may lie in the country—be it in urban or rural areas. The fair funding review also ensured that funding targeted the areas that needed it most and were most deprived of it by the previous Government. It included a measure on rurality to ensure that rural areas get their fair share.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Responsibility for developing a registration scheme for short-term lets in England lies with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is building a simple and easy-to-use registration scheme for short-term lets, informed by ongoing stakeholder feedback and consultation. The scheme entered user testing in October, ahead of its planned launch this year.
Rachael Maskell
The scale of short-term holiday lets in York continues to heighten our significant housing challenges and affect our public services and the economy, while residents have to put up with antisocial behaviour on their doorsteps. That registration scheme will be helpful—it would be good to know when it will be introduced—but will the Minister commit to working with MPs who deal with the significant challenge of Airbnbs in rural, coastal and urban communities, and embark on a consultation for licensing in the next parliamentary Session?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the acute pressures that my hon. Friend faces in her constituency as a result of an excessive concentration of short-term lets. She and I met only recently to discuss that matter, but I will happily continue to engage on it with any hon. Member from across the House. As she knows, the Government appreciate that the excessive concentration of short-term lets can impact on the availability and affordability of homes, both to rent and to buy, and we continue to consider what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by such concentrations.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In rural and coastal communities, hospitality is already under massive pressure thanks to the tax rises, regulatory impacts and other negative impositions of this Government. May I urge Ministers to ensure that if we are to bring in a registration scheme, we gather the data and do not move in too heavy-handedly, because we risk further damage to a hospitality sector that does not need it? We need to establish the data and find out whether further action is required.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with digital delivery experts to ensure that the registration service is robust, secure and simple to use, minimising the impact on businesses for precisely the reasons he gave.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that Cornwall has the second highest number of short-term lets in the country, after London. I understand that DCMS has responsibility for the scheme, but will the Minister discuss with his opposite number in DCMS the possibility of uploading things such as fire and safety certificates and checks to the register, so that it is not just a simple light-touch registration scheme in the future, if not during this round?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, we know that excessive concentrations of short-term lets affect urban and rural constituencies, and that coastal communities in particular are feeling the acute pressures that result from them. I am more than happy to engage with my counterpart in DCMS, as I do already, and to raise the specific points made by my hon. Friend.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Minister look at closing the loophole that allows second-home owners—people who are well-off enough to afford more than one home—to dodge paying any council tax whatsoever by letting their property as a short-term let for up to 72 days per year? Not only do they pay no council tax, but because they are a small business, they pay no business rates either. Thousands of my constituents are working their socks off to pay the council tax to subsidise people like that. That is wrong, isn’t it? Will he also bring in a separate category of planning use to make short-term lets easier to control?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of what we have already done on furnished lettings exemption. We look at taxation in this regard and keep it under constant review. We have had a long discussion on this issue over many years, but I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
In December, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the national youth strategy, our 10-year plan to ensure that young people can access the services and opportunities they need to thrive, and I speak regularly to local leaders about this work. The local government finance settlement makes available £78 billion for English councils this year, most of which is not ringfenced, giving councils the flexibility to meet local needs, including for youth services.
Jon Trickett
I thank the Minister for her response. In the austerity years, over £1 billion was taken out of youth services by the previous Government—that was shameful and damaging to the social fabric. The Minister has already indicated that we are beginning to tackle that legacy, but in mining communities, where villages are remote and there are no bus services readily available in the evening, young people are being left behind. Is there more we can do to help those mining villages? Will she also reflect on the availability of the youth centre in Upton in my constituency, which has been closed since the Tories were in office but might be used as a youth hub?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend reminds us of the damage that was done, particularly to those least able to bear it. I am pleased that spending power for Wakefield has increased by just shy of 27% since Labour came to office, so when it comes to the youth centre in Upton, I hope that there are more options available for Wakefield than there once were. I am happy to work with him on that.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
There is a direct link between youth services and housing in communities. In fact, it has been shown that once we invest in our youth services, there is reduced homelessness and fewer young people in temporary accommodation. However, the cut in real terms—close to £1 billion—means that the whole sector has been decimated. Does the Minister agree with me that when we lose our youth services and our centres, our whole community suffers? How are this Government going to make youth working a viable career going forward?
Alison McGovern
Sadly, we all know only too well the cost that young people had to bear because of the years of austerity. Through the homelessness strategy, we have been trying to support young people at an earlier stage, and I will happily discuss that with him. We need to ensure that young people really do get a decent chance in life.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker?
Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?
Alison McGovern
We are at risk of breaking out in violent agreement across the House about the importance of youth services and what the Conservative party did to them.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats were in government! We did it together!
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues across Government, and my Department works very closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on the interactions between social security policy and homelessness.
Caroline Voaden
Years of freezes to local housing allowance by successive Governments mean that it goes nowhere near covering the cost of social housing, let alone renting privately. In my constituency, the average rent for a three-bedroom home can be well over £1,100 a month, but a family of four will receive only £840 a month. Poor and temporary housing is a key driver of child poverty, so it is really important that we resolve that. Will the Minister commit to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to unfreeze local housing allowance so that we can lift children out of deep poverty?
Alison McGovern
In my previous role and in my current role I have worked very closely across MHCLG and DWP to see the interactions between poverty and homelessness, as I said. We spend £34 billion annually on housing support through social security, including £12 billion on the private rented sector. As part of the child poverty strategy, we have lifted the two-child limit, which will help families—particularly larger families—to stay in homes. We are helping parents with childcare costs, we have brought in the fair repayment rate so that people do not need to get into unnecessary debt, and we have increased the standard allowance of universal credit above inflation for the first time in as long as anyone can remember. Those are big steps to help family income, and we should all be proud of them.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The gap between average rents and wages in Poole is among the widest in the country. Freezing the local housing allowance has clearly made that position worse. Will the Minister outline when the freeze will end and when we will see the allowance increase to reflect the actual housing costs that people face?
Alison McGovern
We obviously keep the local housing allowance under review along with the DWP. If we want to prevent homelessness, we need to build homes and ensure that people can afford them. That is why the Chancellor’s investment of £39 billion to build the social housing that we need is a crucial part of ensuring that families can get housed properly in this country in the future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework. That framework still contains strong protections for the green belt, making it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances.
Wendy Morton
The approach to the green belt taken by Labour Members is the clearest example yet of their saying one thing and doing another. The Secretary of State campaigns against building on green spaces in his own constituency, but he is more than happy to see green spaces in my constituency concreted over by developers. Can the Minister tell me why constituents’ green space in my area is apparently less important than the green space in the Secretary of State’s area?
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Lady well understands—we have had this exchange many times—it is for individual local planning authorities to determine whether green-belt land should be released and the exceptional circumstances test has been met. All the clever questions that she comes up with—I admire her ingenuity in doing so—disguise her true position, which is that she does not want any houses built on any green-belt land in any part of her constituency or anywhere near it, even if that means preventing families from buying or even longer waits for people on housing waiting registers.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?
Matthew Pennycook
I am confident, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm to me whether it is now the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition that if all reasonable options for meeting identified housing need have been exhausted, including grey-belt land, no green-belt land can ever be released, even in those very special circumstances. If that is their position, the Opposition are consciously and deliberately consigning people in this country to longer misery as a result of the acute housing crisis that got worse on their watch and is still causing misery, which we are undoing.
Gareth Bacon
The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?
Matthew Pennycook
It is anything but a dishonest concoction. As I have said, grey-belt land is determined by local planning authorities where it does not meet the purposes of the green belt, as set out. I come back to the question of what the hon. Gentleman is saying: is he saying that our strategic and targeted approach to the green belt should be replaced by the chaotic and haphazard approach that the previous Government took, under which we saw swathes of green-belt land released across the country, often in the wrong areas? The grey belt is ensuring that the right kind of low-quality green-belt land is released where all other options have been exhausted and where need for housing needs to be met through that avenue.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Pride in Place programme supports community cohesion by backing locally led change—local people coming together, whatever their background, to determine their own priorities for putting pride back at the heart of their community.
Sarah Smith
I have established a Get Hyndburn Working group, which is bringing together local organisations, schools, the Department for Work and Pensions, voluntary sector organisations, the college and our training providers to tackle economic inactivity and look at the high levels of our young people who are out of work, training and education. Does the Minister agree that Pride in Place funding could play a key role in supporting these place-based, collective approaches to tackling such issues?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that working group together. That is an excellent use of her role as a Member of Parliament to support her community to have a bigger say, and to enable them to share their ideas and creativity about how to tackle local priorities in the circumstances she is talking about—the important matter of getting people into work and guaranteeing them a better future.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise that a far smaller proportion of social rented homes are let as furnished or partly furnished, compared with the private rented sector. In our response to last year’s consultation on a new decent homes standard, we made clear that we are exploring what more can be done to support the tenants who are most in need to access floor coverings and other essential furniture. Tenants currently living without essential furniture can, of course, look to local authorities for support through the crisis and resilience fund.
Luke Akehurst
Karbon Homes, which is the dominant social landlord in North Durham, provides furnished tenancies to ensure that vulnerable low-income tenants can access essential furniture and white goods. What steps will the Minister’s Department take to ensure that other social landlords across the UK adopt this approach, to greatly improve the quality of life for the least well-off people?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend Karbon Homes for its commitment to furnished tenancies. While such tenancies are not mandatory, we know that many social landlords want to know more about the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes can provide, as well as the funding and budgeting implications and operational requirements. We intend to publish comprehensive best practice guidance alongside our updated decent homes standard, and will engage with providers and other stakeholders in its development.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency I have families moving into social housing with no beds for their children to sleep in, no table at which to eat family meals and no white goods with which to cook healthy meals. Will the Minister recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants moving into social housing have access to basic furniture? Will he commit to working with social housing providers to ensure that no one is left without the essentials?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise the importance of ensuring that tenants can access essential furniture where required. Furnished tenancies are not mandatory. In making the decision on the decent homes standard, we had to balance the costs involved with the need to ensure that the requirements cover all providers. We are—not least through the best practice guidance that, as I have just made clear, we intend to bring forward—seeking to encourage the really good practice out there, so that more social landlords can take advantage of the opportunities that furnished tenancy schemes provide.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government continue to steadily implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute and to progress the wider set of reforms necessary to end the leasehold system for good in this Parliament, not least through the provisions in our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was published on 27 January.
Alex Ballinger
My constituent Yvonne has lived in a house in Halesowen that she has owned for 20 years. She purchased it under a leasehold arrangement that allowed her property management company, Principle Estate Management, to quadruple her service charge from £400 to £1,550 without conducting any maintenance. Clearly, Yvonne feels that she is being ripped off, and other residents of the same housing estate are now having difficulty selling their homes. Will the Minister outline what action is being taken to tackle property management firms such as Principle Estate Management, so that people like Yvonne are not continually being ripped off?
Matthew Pennycook
I am determined to switch on the improved leaseholder consumer rights provided for by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, including service charge standardisation and transparency measures, at the earliest possible opportunity so that people like Yvonne, and many hundreds of thousands more across the country who are dealing with exorbitant service charge increases, including in my constituency, will get the protection they need. When it comes to managing agents, we are committed to strengthening regulation, as my hon. Friend knows, but I will happily write to provide him with the full position and details of what measures we are considering.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer and the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising these issues. We have similar problems in my constituency, and I know that the Minister is keen to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can take advantage of the legislative change that the Government have proposed here. Will the Minister talk with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the proposals put forward by the UK Government to address these issues can help my constituents in Northern Ireland too?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we engage regularly with our Northern Ireland counterparts. On leasehold reform, which covers just England and Wales, I am more than happy to provide him with the insights of the proposals that we have been working up and what more we are considering to take forward in future months and years.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government do not support the introduction of rent controls, which we believe could make life more difficult for renters. There is sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from individual cities such as San Francisco, as well as the recent Scottish experience, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent controls on tenants.
Dan Carden
There is an injection of housing investment in some parts of my constituency, but sadly it is by landlords who are taking advantage of low house prices to turn family homes and whole terraces into houses in multiple occupation, charging sky-high rents for people to live in single bedrooms, undermining the local community. The Minister has told me a few times that the Government are opposed to rent controls, but will he look again at the evidence and start to consult? It is clear that we need to see rents come down in this country, especially in the most deprived areas.
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked at a wealth of evidence, particularly international evidence, of what the impact of first and second-generation rent controls are, as well as more subtle forms of rent control, which can have differential impacts on different groups. Such controls typically benefit settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move. While I appreciate that a broad spectrum of regulation falls under the title, there is enough international evidence, in the Government’s view, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent controls, and our position remains that we will not introduce them.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 meets Labour’s manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting in England. We will introduce our reforms in three phases, the first of which will begin on 1 May, when section 21 no-fault evictions will be abolished and rent increases will be limited to just one a year. We will end rental bidding wars and limit requests for rent in advance to a maximum of one month, and it will be illegal to discriminate against prospective renters who have children or who receive benefits. These are the biggest reforms in the rental sector for a generation. The Tories and Reform UK voted against them and the Greens want to abolish renting, but this Labour Government stand firmly on the side of renters.
Sarah Dyke
The availability of affordable housing in Somerset has plummeted, demand has surged and rents have risen by six times as much as income. These challenges are highlighted in rural market towns such as Glastonbury, where hundreds of people live in vans and caravans lining the kerbsides. Many are there because they cannot afford to rent a bricks-and-mortar home. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe place where they can afford to live?
Steve Reed
Ensuring that there are decent and safe places to live all across this country is a primary objective of this Government. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the social and affordable homes programme opened for bids in February, and the first phase of bidding will close later in April. The programme will provide up to £39 billion for the biggest ever increase in the amount of social and affordable housing across this country, including council housing, which will make a massive difference to people in rural areas as well as those in other parts of the country.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework included proposals to strengthen support for rural exception sites, and to make it easier for authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites in rural areas. My hon. Friend will also be aware that designated rural areas are already exempt from the right to buy, but I would be more than happy to meet her and her fellow members of the research group to discuss protecting existing stock, and other matters covered in the recent report that she referenced.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Last week I was in Bromsgrove, a rural constituency facing an 85% increase in its housing target. Neighbouring Labour-run Birmingham, which has significant brownfield capacity, has seen its target cut by more than 30%. Targets are increasing by 37% in Essex, but decreasing by 11% in London. House building has collapsed under this Labour Government, so why is the Secretary of State letting his Labour-run urban friends off the hook while dumping housing targets in rural Britain?
Steve Reed
It was, of course, the Conservative Government who abolished housing targets everywhere, which led to the housing crisis that we are now facing. Under that Government, the number of people sleeping rough, on the streets and in shop doorways, doubled. Opposition Members are smiling while I explain what they did: they are smiling because the number of people sleeping on the streets doubled, while the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled as well. The Conservatives did nothing when the housing market collapsed in 2022-23 because of Liz Truss’ Budget, which the shadow Secretary of State supported.
Sir James Cleverly
The Secretary of State cannot answer—he does not have an answer. Perhaps he can give the answer that he failed to give in response to a written question, because he has once again refused to publish either the prospectus or the selection criteria for his election pilots. This is part of a wider pattern: cancelling elections that the Government do not think they will win, changing local government boundaries instead of giving that task to the independent Boundary Commission, and changing voter ID arrangements without consultation. When I saw this kind of behaviour overseas, I called it out for what it was: dirty, self-interested, partisan politics. Will the Secretary of State scrap this Orbán-style politics and start doing things properly?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, elections are going ahead all over the country right now. I suspect that, like me, he has been campaigning and knocking on doors to talk to people about how they will vote, and we will find out in a few weeks what their judgments on all of us will be.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Through the Representation of the People Bill, we are significantly lowering the threshold for when unincorporated associations register with the Electoral Commission, and we will require them to publicly identify a responsible person who is legally accountable for compliance with electoral law.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Just before Easter, a development of 500-plus homes in my constituency, predicated on building a brand-new Howard of Effingham school, was withdrawn after a decade of commitment to the plan. The developer is expected to proceed with a new application without a school. The community and school are understandably angry and upset. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that developers can be held to such long-term commitments, and will he meet me to discuss the issue and its implications in my constituency and more widely?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady will appreciate that Ministers cannot comment on individual planning applications or local plans, but I am more than happy to meet her and discuss the general issues arising from the case she mentions.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is important for local authorities to work very closely with NHS colleagues, as I am doing in Government, to ensure that we have sufficient adult social care. Otherwise, we will not be able to get people out of hospital and into good homes. I ask his local council to pay attention to that, and I will happily work with him on it.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. We want to see all councils progress towards financial sustainability, and what I would say to her constituents is that the decisions taken over the past 14 years have left councils paying for failure. If we get that right, we will be able to spend on the things that people really prioritise locally.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Can the Minister outline how the new national homelessness strategy will provide additional funds to Sunderland city council to tackle rough sleeping and to support the vital work that organisations such as Oasis Community Housing, the Salvation Army and the Sunderland Community Soup Kitchen do in our city?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and, through him, I thank the organisations that he mentions. Our homelessness plan provides millions of pounds for Sunderland to help prevent people from becoming homeless. As with all Members, I will work with him on that.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
I find it quite galling that we have the shadow Secretary of State saying that we have lowered London’s housing targets too far and the hon. Gentleman saying that they are too high. They are just in the right place, from my point of view.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for outlining the reforms that will come through with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. In 18 days’ time, residents will see no-fault evictions banned. The Minister knows that we need local authorities to have the resources, and he has outlined that there will be additional resources for local authorities, including the launch of the private rented sector database and the PRS ombudsman. Can the Minister give us an update on when they will be live?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will not have to wait long at all for details of the new burdens funding that is coming through for local authorities. On the implementation of the Act more widely, as she knows, the database, the ombudsman and other things will come through in further waves after the wave that commences on 1 May.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Rural areas are facing a wave of unauthorised developments on land owned by Travellers, with little or no action being taken against them. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and 30 of my colleagues have been pressing for national support to give new powers to the police and local authorities to deal with this issue. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the issue, which is causing havoc in our precious British countryside?
Matthew Pennycook
Local planning authorities have a range of planning enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised development, with strong penalties for non-compliance. In our recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, we included proposals to strengthen national policy in respect of unauthorised development. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and other hon. Members about the issue.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My constituents in Blackpool South pay more in council tax for their housing than people with mansions in Mayfair. That is because, under the Conservatives, Blackpool council had to put its council tax up to the max just to get by. Will the Minister outline for my constituents how we can lower council tax for people in Blackpool South?
Alison McGovern
I have mentioned the increased charge that the Chancellor introduced, because this Labour party believes in fairness when it comes to council tax. I will work with councils right across the country to get their costs down so that people are not left paying sky-high bills in future.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The presumption in favour of development at transport nodes and on the so-called grey belt means that in my constituency of Esher and Walton, which is half green belt and has a disproportionately high number of stations—everybody lives within 15 minutes of a station—everywhere can be developed under the Government’s proposals. What should I say to my constituents who are facing concrete everywhere?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member should say that they live near highly sustainable areas for development and we want to see more homes come forward in those areas.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Last week, the Sikh community in Sandwell was rocked by a second appalling attack at Guru Nanak gurdwara. For the second time, the gurdwara faced a racist attack in which someone dropped a bag of meat on the doorstep. Given that meat is strictly banned inside the gurdwara, this was deeply offensive. As this was a repeat attack, will the Minister meet me to talk about what we can do to stop this anti-Sikh hate and make the gurdwara safe?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for telling the House about this appalling incident, which we all agree is absolutely terrible. Racial and religious hate is completely unacceptable. I am sure that her constituents will be glad to know that the Prime Minister is here to hear what has happened. The Government support such organisations. I will make sure that the Minister for community cohesion—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) —meets my hon. Friend.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At the behest of Labour-dominated Southampton city council, two thirds of my constituents are to be torn away from the New Forest and placed under the control of an urban-dominated unitary authority. Does the Minister accept that my constituents are overwhelmingly against what the Government are trying to do?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point on behalf of his constituents. We take everybody’s views into account. I know that this will be difficult, but we will be working with all colleagues as we make the process work.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The week before Easter, Derby suffered a terrible incident in which a car was driven into crowds of people on Friar Gate and several people were seriously injured. Will the Minister join me in thanking the emergency services for their response, as well as members of the public who delivered first aid? Will she meet me to discuss how we can strengthen local preparedness and design out risks, not just in Derby but across the country, to help to keep people safe in future?
Samantha Dixon
I am so sorry to hear about that terrible incident. I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. The local resilience forum in Derbyshire has worked really hard to respond to the event; I will work with her and with others across the country on resilience and recovery.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Conservative-run East Sussex county council has a vendetta against local businesses. Most recently, it placed an enormous storage crate outside the Dickens Tea Cottage, which will affect local businesses. Will the Minister urge the council to remove it so that we can protect custom at that local business?
Alison McGovern
I would advise all councils not to have a vendetta against local businesses.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In just one week prior to Easter, Hillingdon council discharged its homelessness duty by issuing 22 section 208 notices and placing 77 individuals, including 35 children, in Hartlepool, with many concentrated in just one postcode. Does the Minister accept that this unfair practice places far too great a burden on towns like mine?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House; he knows how important it is. Hillingdon council will have heard what he has said. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by rehearsing all that the Government are doing on this issue, but it is not acceptable.
Middle East
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf, the evolving situation in the middle east and the implications for Britain’s security.
Before I do that, I want to put on the record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today’s report is harrowing. It is difficult to read and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause the families it affects. Our thoughts are with them today. The Home Secretary will respond to the report in full after this statement.
Last week I visited the Gulf and was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the US-Iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, in this House, for their courage and their service. I am sure the whole House will join me in those thanks.
While in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, and the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. In recent days, I have also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all those conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times. We should not forget that the nature of Iran’s response—the indiscriminate attack upon countries that never sought this conflict and the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure, with civilian casualties—is abhorrent. It has clearly shocked the region and all of us.
We must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future, because while the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal, we call for Lebanon to be included, urgently, in the ceasefire. Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear that Israel’s strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.
We also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation. That applies to the running sore that is the strait of Hormuz, shamefully exploited by Iran. All the leaders I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored—no conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world’s economy to ransom. The impact of Iran’s behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage that is visible on every petrol forecourt in this country.
My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That is why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war. It is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the middle east—because that is squarely in our national interest. Clearly, that is not a straightforward task, and it will take time. I have met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it is safe to do so. That is why we are working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait.
I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. The summit will be focused on two things: first, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened; secondly, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. Let me be very clear: this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation once the conflict ends. Our shared aim is a co-ordinated, independent, multinational plan. This is the moment for clear and calm leadership and, notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part.
Let me return to the impact of the conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant and that they will last longer than the conflict itself. We continue to monitor the effects. I remind the House that energy bills went down on 1 April and that whatever happens in the middle east, those bills will stay down until July. We are investing more than £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September—all because of the decisions this Government took at the Budget.
However, there is a wider point. We cannot stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience; Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now. From the 2008 financial crash, through austerity, Brexit, covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo—a status quo that manifestly failed working people, who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated.
This time, Britain’s response must and will be different to reflect the changing world we live in. That starts with our economic security: during this conflict alone, we have capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers’ rights and ended the two-child limit, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. Looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies, because Brexit did deep damage to the economy, and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.
It continues with our energy security. I say once again that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, we do not set the global price for oil and gas. Households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control pushing up their energy bills. I stand with them on that. We will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy-independent, because that is the only way we will get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills.
Finally, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have, with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen, of which this party in government was a founding member: the NATO alliance. It also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent’s defence more robustly, and deepening our partnerships, as we have done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde and Turkish Typhoons in Lancashire. Not only is that creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but it is enhancing the way that our armed forces can collaborate with our allies.
As the middle east conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now.
The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age.
A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation.
Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters.
Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences.
Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again.
We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles.
We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.
I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further.
I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.
Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.
The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that
“it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Affairs Committee has just come from a meeting with some of the Gulf ambassadors, who are genuinely grateful for the help that Britain has given in defending their countries, and want to say how grateful they are that the Prime Minister visited the Gulf, in an act of true solidarity. But when people heard the Israeli Defence Minister say that his war aims in Lebanon would follow “the model in Gaza”, our blood ran cold. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what role the United Kingdom can play to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon, and that Israel is prevented from taking over Lebanon south of the Litani river?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the important question of Lebanon; I want to be really clear in relation to that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are using every opportunity we can to make that argument. I am pleased that there is some diplomacy at the moment, but those attacks should stop and it is important that we are very clear about that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.
“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—
words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.
Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.
In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.
In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.
In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for confirming that, despite the significant unwelcome trolling and pressure from President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu, the UK is not being dragged into this war and that it is not in our national interest. Given that the US has now initiated a blockade of Iranian ports, can the Prime Minister confirm what steps are being taken to help de-escalate the situation and reopen the strait of Hormuz so that goods can transit freely and we can ease the cost of living pressures for our constituents? Also, what is being done to help de-escalate the situation in Lebanon? Can he confirm that any future UK involvement in the region will be strictly limited to defensive purposes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and reiterate that we will not be dragged into the war. We are taking steps across a number of levels. What we can do together to de-escalate was central to the discussions I had in the Gulf states last week; they are shocked and angry, frankly, that they have been attacked in the way that they have been attacked. They were not involved in the conflict, and it is clear to them that they were targeted within hours of the beginning of the conflict starting, and that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted as well. They are absolutely clear that that targeting was put in place before the conflict started. We are working with them and across the coalition of dozens of countries to de-escalate and to get the strait of Hormuz open just as soon as it is viable and credible to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister may recall that on day one of this war, I supported his defensive attitude to it and said that we could not change the regime from the air. We agreed and he has been proved right, but—with apologies to Leon Trotsky —we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us. We all agree that we have to rapidly re-arm, but the trouble is that with an ever-increasing proportion of our economy being taken up by the state pension and benefits, perhaps we cannot afford to do so. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition to take the necessary—perhaps unpopular—decisions to return defence spending to what we spent in 1989 at the end of the cold war?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to raise this, and we have already raised defence spending, as he knows, in the most significant way since the cold war. I was clear in the Munich security conference speech that I gave a few weeks ago that we need to go further and faster, and we will. In addition to the funding itself, it is really important that we take this opportunity to collaborate and co-operate with our partners, particularly in Europe, because if all European countries simply increase their spending without regard to the capability that they are using that spending on, we will not make the best of what we have got. Therefore, I am making a dual argument—first, in relation to the actual money we have spent, and secondly in relation to the way we need to collaborate on this with our allies, particularly in Europe, in a way that we have not done, frankly, in decades.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire—1,700 people have already been killed by Israeli attacks and 1.1 million people have been displaced. At a time when aid budgets have been cut, including by our own Government, will the Prime Minister commit to playing that international leadership role, as he is doing, on getting a ceasefire, working with our European partners and others, and to supporting the humanitarian effort and increasing support to those being displaced in the region? Will he also think about how we support countries in the global south that will now be hit hard because of this crisis? The impact of that will affect us all if we do not take action at the international level.
The Prime Minister
Can I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and be clear that Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire? It is very important that we are clear about the principle behind that. I also accept that there must be more support on the humanitarian front. We have just put more money into the humanitarian support, but it is clearly a cause of concern in Lebanon and in the wider area, as she rightly points out.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I think the Prime Minister should acknowledge—I am sure that he does—that over the past 30 years our armed forces have been hollowed out by Governments of all parties as they have sought to take a peace dividend, but I am afraid that the chickens have come home to roost on his watch. Will he therefore now commit to a huge and immediate uplift in defence spending—not just by vaporising British soft power expenditure; we are talking of moving towards a 5% increase—so that the Government can play a full part in European defence and deliver on their first duty to their own citizens?
The Prime Minister
I agree that our armed forces and our capabilities have been hollowed out over many years, in particular under the last Government, I am afraid to say—Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, was very clear about that. The right hon. Member is right to say that now is the point at which there is probably more conflict going on in the world than most of us have seen in our lifetimes, and that is why we have to increase defence spending. That is why we took the decision to increase to 2.5% sooner than people thought we would, and that is already taking place. I made commitments at the NATO summit last year in relation to the further spending that we need to put in place. I stand by those commitments. We must go further and we must go faster.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Let me thank the Prime Minister for his statesmanship. This weekend saw the Pakistani Government step up and take global leadership by expertly hosting and mediating negotiations between Iran and America. The whole world is indebted to the noble efforts of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and General Syed Asim Munir to achieve a ceasefire. Given that Pakistan is a long-term ally of Britain, will the Prime Minister outline what support he is giving the Pakistani Government to facilitate an agreement for long-lasting peace and stability in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
Can I reiterate my thanks to Pakistan for the role that it is playing? I can tell the House that I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday, as we were going into the talks this weekend, about the talks and what support we could put in place, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to her counterpart this afternoon. It is very important that we support this process and try to move it forward, not to let it escalate.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to condemn the abhorrent response of the terrorists in the IRGC, but I notice in his statement that there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Donald Trump’s actions, there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Netanyahu’s action, and—despite having the entire Easter break to think about it—there was explicitly no new financial support for households on these isles whatsoever, despite the fact that the Irish Government have put down €750 billion of support for motorists and farmers. The best he can muster is to “continue to monitor the effects.” Now, I appreciate that he might not be in office for very much longer, but while he is, the public expect him to provide support—why isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we put in support and protection for our citizens in the region by taking defensive action. He opposed that —protection for Scottish citizens in the Gulf. Scottish National party Members opposed taking any action whatsoever. It is only because we have stabilised the economy that we are able to reduce energy bills. What did they do? They voted against the Budget in which we put forward the money for that. We will carefully do the work that we need to do to reopen the strait of Hormuz, which is the single most effective thing we can do in relation to household costs, and to work for de-escalation. I would have thought that he would support that, but unfortunately he is again on the opportunistic road rather than on the road to supporting what we really need to do.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all that he is doing towards de-escalating the conflict in the middle east. I agree with him that we should not get drawn into the conflict. May I ask him about Palestine, and the west bank in particular? More than 30 former UK ambassadors have said that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement expansions should see their business interests in and with the UK endangered. Does he agree?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is very important that we do not lose focus on what is happening in the west bank, which is deeply concerning and worrying. On the E1 settlements, I made our position clear—the week before last, I think—and that remains our position.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
In a crisis, Governments have permission to do things that are not possible in normal times, but I am worried that what the Prime Minister is going to bring forward will not meet the measure of the moment. Will he commit to dramatically changing energy policy so that it focuses as much on cheap energy as on clean energy? When it comes to the desperate need to increase defence spending, will he consider serious welfare reform to stop someone who earns the national living wage while working full time sometimes getting only half as much support as someone on the three main benefits?
The Prime Minister
Of course we have to focus on the cost of energy. There is simply no denying the fact that it is because we are on the international market that our energy prices are going up and down. Families across the country are really fed up with the fact that international events happen, which they cannot control, and their energy bills go up and down, causing a cost of living crisis. That is because we are on the international fossil fuel market—there is no denying that—and it will be the case as long as we are on that market, because it controls the price. Putin and Iran control the price of the international market, and the longer we are on it, the more that families here will be subjected to that.
We have to take control of energy bills. The only way to do that is through energy independence. That is why I think we need to double down, and go faster and further on that. Yes, of course, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been clear about that—but it is equally clear that that will not have an effect on the price and cost of energy bills. The only thing that will is coming off the international market that we are stuck on. That is why the strait of Hormuz is so important; we do not get that much energy from oil and gas coming through the strait, but because we are on the international market, we are impacted by the fact that others do. That is the source of the problem, and that is why we are working so hard to resolve it.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I echo the comments about the President’s statement on Easter Sunday, when he said that he could destroy a 2,500-year-old civilisation in an evening. Is it not clear that the strait of Hormuz was open before the President foolishly launched his illegal war? Will the Prime Minister say clearly that no British military assets or brave personnel will be put at risk by the President’s foolish idea to blockade the strait even further?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is of course Iran that is putting the chokehold on the strait. That is wrong, and the strength of feeling across the Gulf last week was very, very clear to me. I can assure him that we are not getting involved in the proposal to blockade the strait. On the contrary, we are working with other countries to try and get the strait open, and fully open, for free navigation, something this country has championed for years and years and years.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Today, the US President impersonated Jesus Christ. Last week, he pledged to wipe out an entire civilisation. His warmongering in the middle east is piling on the pressure for my constituents in Esher and Walton, from prices at the pump to mortgage increases in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Given the disturbing utterances from the occupant of the White House and the squeeze on our living standards, surely the future is across the channel towards Europe, and I note that the Prime Minister gave a line, presumably for the local elections, about alignment with Europe, but can he give more detail on what this means for defence, for security and for prosperity?
The Prime Minister
A close relationship with the EU and Europe was in our manifesto in 2024, which was a very successful manifesto, and we have been working to that end ever since, which is why we had the first UK-EU summit last year, with 10 strands agreed. It is also why I have been clear that we want to go further this year, not just in seeing where we have got to on what we have already agreed, but going further than that because it is in our interests, whether in defence, security, energy or the economy, to be closer to Europe and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome his convening of a summit of leaders alongside President Macron. The situation in Lebanon is devastating. Israeli escalation has led to a grave humanitarian situation. The images of civilians being carpet-bombed are horrifying. I want to reiterate what the Foreign Affairs Committee heard today. We met with ambassadors from the Gulf. They expressed their genuine appreciation for the Prime Minister’s presence and Britain’s continuing support. May I ask the Prime Minister to continue to represent the voices of our constituents and to resist escalation, to include Lebanon in the ceasefire and to press for peace?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we will make the case for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, and we will continue with our work to de-escalate and not get drawn into this war.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
We all hear the Prime Minister’s words about Lebanon, but the lesson of the last two and a half years is that his words, and the words of anyone in this House, have no impact on an Israeli Government seemingly led by supremacist maniacs. Before Easter, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many Lebanese was an acceptable number to see killed over the coming weeks, and we have learned over the Easter break that there is seemingly no upper limit before we are willing to act. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: given that he rightly proudly pointed to the part Britain is playing in defending other nations in the region, why have we not stepped forward to defend Lebanese civilians in the same way we have others? Secondly, I have an even simpler question if he cannot answer that one: does Lebanon have a right to exist?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really serious issue. The immediate focus has to be on ensuring that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire and being absolutely clear in our condemnation of the action that Israel is taking. We are working on that on a number of levels, but I have always believed, and continue to believe, that we are stronger when we work with other countries, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement and note the emphasis he has put on there being no return to the status quo, particularly in relation to the importance of energy independence. Will he acknowledge that we are now entering a new energy era, and perhaps he agrees with President von der Leyen, who today has said:
“There is one thing that all these events are making clear: we are paying a very high price for our overdependency on fossil fuels. And the grim reality for our continent is: fossil fuel energy will remain the most expensive option in the years to come”?
The Prime Minister
That is the argument that I have been making, and I believe it to be right. It is the argument the Leader of the Opposition used to make, but she has U-turned on that as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
All our constituents are worried about the price of energy, including the price of gas. But is the Prime Minister aware that the price of gas in the US has fallen by 20% since the start of this war while the price of gas in the UK has increased by 50%, proving that if we produce and consume our gas domestically we can have much lower bills, and proving too why we must allow the consents for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all of the oil fields across the North sea and onshore as well?
The Prime Minister
I remind myself that the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position was to fully support the war—to go in with both feet, whatever the consequences. Now he says that there are these consequences; well, his party should have thought about that before it adopted the policy of going straight in. On the question of energy and gas, yes, the price is subject to the international market because we are on the international market, and that is why the sooner we have energy independence, the better.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Trump’s illegal war on Iran and his genocidal threats to kill a whole civilisation are part and parcel of a dangerous new US security plan. The Trump doctrine is based upon yet more war and tearing up international law, making the whole world less safe. Given that, I say to the Prime Minister, is it not time for Britain to stop being a junior partner to the US and to pursue a truly independent foreign policy? Should the very first step not be to end all US access to British military bases for Trump’s war on Iran?
The Prime Minister
We have about 300,000 British civilians in the Gulf region, and they are at risk because of Iran’s actions. It is my duty to ensure that we protect them. That is why we have taken action in our own right, particularly with our pilots. It is also why I have allowed the bases to be used for defensive purposes to prevent attacks on our civilians, as much as anything else, who are in the region. We are never going to abandon them to their fate when missiles and drones are incoming into the areas where they live and work. It is my duty to protect them, and I will continue to do so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister remind some of his colleagues that the United States is a democracy and an ally, and Iran is an odious regime that could have ended the war this weekend had it agreed to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons and to cease supporting its proxy terrorist organisations around the middle east? Would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister criticised the Iran regime a bit more, rather than supporting his colleagues in criticising the United States?
The Prime Minister
In fairness, I have been very clear about the Iranian regime—it is odious and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is really important that it does not have a nuclear capability and that we deal with its proxies. That has been the consistent position of this Government—and previous Governments, to be fair—and it has been the way that I have put it from the Dispatch Box on many, many occasions.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister on his efforts to keep the UK out of Donald Trump’s latest dangerous attempt to end a blockade by creating another. I also commend Pakistan’s attempt to broker peace and the UK Government’s work with over 30 countries to pursue a diplomatic solution. However, if the strait remains closed, what plans do the Government have to protect UK households and businesses from the impact on energy supplies, trade and rising costs?
The Prime Minister
We are planning for all contingencies, but I emphasise once again that our absolute focus has to be on getting the strait open. Having spoken to those working in shipping, finance, insurance and so on, they are very clear with me that they are not going to be putting vessels through while there is a conflict, and therefore we must de-escalate and come up with that credible plan. We will do that in conjunction with other countries, and that is why President Macron and I are convening the summit later this week, building on the work that we have been doing over the past few weeks.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In his statement, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to double down on NATO. President Trump has attempted to use the threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance to blackmail other NATO countries into joining his illegal endeavour in Iran, and he has threatened to annex the sovereign territory of another NATO member and has said that NATO members were not there for the US. It is clear that the US is an unreliable partner in NATO, so will the Prime Minister announce when he is going to release the defence investment plan? Will he explain how we can forge closer ties with our European allies, who are more reliable?
The Prime Minister
The first thing I would say is that it is very important that we defend NATO. It is the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known, and we should do nothing to weaken it. I think there should be a stronger European element on defence and security—that is an argument I have been making for some time. It is particularly important now that Europe steps up with a stronger European element, and we are working with our allies to do that.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his positive efforts on the issue of the strait of Hormuz. Last week, I met with farmers in Whitby who are deeply concerned about the skyrocketing price of red diesel. In January, the fuel cost 64p per litre, and it has since doubled. With the busiest period of the farming calendar approaching, will the Prime Minister outline what measures the Government are considering to support farmers impacted by these rising costs?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we have been looking at that in the various meetings we have been having, particularly on the red diesel question, and we are looking at contingencies. In addition to planning for those contingencies, it is really important that we double down on our work to de-escalate and to open up the strait of Hormuz.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I quote the Prime Minister? He told us just a few moments ago that energy bills will “stay down until July”. He also correctly said that
“we do not set the global price for oil and gas”.
Is the Prime Minister making an enormous gamble on the energy price? How much money has he set aside in order to ensure that bills stay down even if prices rise? I am not sure if he is aware, but the last tanker to leave the strait of Hormuz and bring fuel to the UK docked only a few days ago. The last tanker to arrive in US waters will arrive in a day or two. After that, we are on our own. Is he taking that bet? Who is going to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we are reducing energy bills—we have done that already—by an average of £100 per household. That will remain the case until July this year. It is very important that people hear that message, because they are concerned. They are concerned to know that that will be the case whatever happens in the conflict, and it is. That decision was taken as a result of what we did at the Budget last year. We will be able to stabilise the economy and provide the money for it because we are bearing down on the cost of living.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for refusing to allow the UK to be dragged into America’s war in Iran, which is hitting my constituents directly in the pocket and at the petrol pump. He rightly mentioned the people of Palestine earlier. May I remind him that last week, the former heads of Shin Bet and Mossad security services, as well as former chiefs of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, described the ongoing settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as “government sponsored Jewish terrorism”? That is not only a moral disgrace, but a fatal strategic blow to Israel’s own national security. I urge the PM to condemn the settler violence, Israel’s refusal to tackle it and Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements and to back the Pope, who said that peace should be the priority.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of settler violence, because it is disturbing and wrong, and it has escalated, as he knows better than most. Our clear position has been to call it out and to do everything we can in relation to settler violence, which is getting worse by the day.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This crisis has laid bare the parlous state of the British military. The three main parties of government should put aside the blame game and accept that we have all played our part in getting the British military into the state that it is in now. For over a year, the Liberal Democrats have been asking for cross-party talks on how to get to the 3% spending target, and I am glad that the Conservatives have now joined us. We have spoken about defence bonds, and I am sure that the Conservatives and the Government have ideas. This could be the Prime Minister’s legacy. Can we get together in the national interest and talk about how to increase defence spending?
The Prime Minister
We do need to increase defence spending, and I have been clear about that. May I make the case that our military have been hard at work throughout this conflict from within about two hours of it starting? That means hours and hours of pilots taking on incoming missiles to safeguard our citizens, our interests and those in the Gulf. When I was there last week, all the leaders I met were at pains to thank us for what our military is doing. We are too quick sometimes to run them down; they have done a lot of brave work, particularly in the last six to seven weeks, and I thank them for that work.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts, not least over the past few days. Although many of us have a difference of opinion with President Trump about the way he talks and the actions he is taking in terms of Iran—those are obviously things that we on the Labour Benches do not agree with—I am a little concerned that we should not get his views mixed up with what those in Congress and the Senate in the United States of America think, where there is significant and overwhelming support for NATO and Europe. It is important that we remember that, because our relationship with America is very important, not least in terms of NATO. I hope the Prime Minister will comment on that.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the broad support that there is, and always has been, for NATO in the United States. While it is true that we should do more for a stronger European element in NATO, we should never pull away from NATO, which—as I say—has been the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The war in the middle east is having a real effect on my constituents. From fuel to fertiliser, prices are increasing, and action needs to be taken to alleviate the consequences. Although there are immediate steps that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should be taking, not least reversing the planned increase in fuel duty, the bigger picture involves reopening the strait of Hormuz. What thought has been given to the role that the UK can play in clearing the strait of mines? In particular, did the Prime Minister raise the potential deployment of our autonomous minesweeping capabilities, which are already in the region, during his discussions?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about opening the strait and playing our part—there is the political and diplomatic element, but there is also the issue of military capability. What we are doing with the countries that we have brought together in a loose coalition, and will meet in person later this week, is to look across those capabilities and draw them together. We do have capabilities when it comes to minesweeping; I will not go into operational details, but the hon. Lady knows what they are. Obviously, as we look across the board with President Macron and others, part of that exercise—the military planners have been looking at this—will be how we can pull together the capabilities of all the countries that are prepared to work with us on this. We have been working with at least a couple of dozen for the past two weeks, and we will be doing that further this week.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in supporting our regional partners and our national interests, particularly that of free navigation. However, that lies outwith our most immediate security problem, which is defending Europe from Russian attack in all its forms. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should recognise Russian-Iranian co-operation, and that we must not let that distract us from our urgent need to rearm collectively and defend our country and the continent of Europe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the really important issue of the relationship between Russia and Iran, and the assistance that Russia has given to Iran in relation to the intelligence that is being used during the conflict. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, and Russia is a huge threat to our continent and our country.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Will the defence investment plan be signed before the local elections on 7 May?
The Prime Minister
We are working to finalise the defence investment plan. It is really important that we do not make the mistakes that the last Government made; we inherited plans that were unfunded and not deliverable, so it is really important that our plan is robust. We are finalising it, but it will be a robust plan that serves for the future defence and protection of this country.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We now know that an agreement was about to be reached on uranium enrichment by Iran. However, Israel decided to bomb Iran, as did the USA, engaging in an illegal, immoral and dangerous war of choice. Even during the ceasefire, which included Lebanon, Israel continues to bomb south Lebanon and Beirut, displacing millions of people. This is typical of Israel: just before an agreement is reached, it kills negotiators and bombs countries. This is not a faraway conflict; my constituents are paying the price for it through higher fuel costs and rising mortgages and household bills. [Interruption.] What additional steps is the Prime Minister taking to help my constituents, as well as people across the country and the world, by bringing peace—unlike Members on the Conservative Benches, who seem to be finding it very amusing?
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why we are working with other countries to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. As I said in my statement, that will not be easy, but notwithstanding that challenge, we will continue to do that work.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?
The Prime Minister
The US is using the bases to attack the Iranian capability to fire missiles into the region, including at our citizens and our nationals. Members will have seen the images—going into hotels and the bases where our military are based. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should reduce protection for our people in the region and expose them to attacks that they would not otherwise be exposed to? That, to me, would be a dereliction of duty, and I will never do that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think the House is at one with the Prime Minister on the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire. The problem that we face is that today there have been more airstrikes against the Lebanese, and the Israeli artillery is now shelling Lebanese cities and towns. Many of us feel that it is because Netanyahu is out of control, and Donald Trump is not willing to exert that control or influence to bring him into line. In the Prime Minister’s next discussions with European leaders that he is successfully convening, will he place on the agenda a comprehensive European sanctions strategy, so that we can exert some influence to prevent Netanyahu running out of control and creating problems for the globe, and not just the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire. These attacks must stop, and we need to be really clear about that. We will work with our allies on both those issues.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We know that the defence investment plan was originally due to be published last year. As it is a 10-year plan, will it be a 10-year plan from publication in this financial year, 2026-27? Does that change the cost envelope? Is it a 10-year plan or a nine-year plan in terms of how it is being financed?
The Prime Minister
It is a 10-year plan, and it mirrors our strategic review. It sits alongside the defence spending commitments that we have made and are implementing with the 2.5%, and the commitments that I made at the NATO summit last year.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The House has repeatedly been told that the Government have permitted the US to use British military bases for defensive purposes only, but amid the widespread US targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools, hospitals and bridges, we have not been told how those restrictions work in practice. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether US military aircraft have taken off from RAF Fairford or Lakenheath carrying heavy munition payloads? If they have, is there any US operational policy for action from our bases in place that has been approved by this Government? If not, is it the case that the working definition of defensive action is simply, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?
The Prime Minister
Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is not the position. The use is for defensive action only. I am particularly concerned to make sure that we take every measure available to protect our nationals in the region, of whom there are very many. The use is for defensive action, and that is monitored. It has been monitored since the bases began being used.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Prime Minister is right to suggest that the tremors provoked by this conflict will reverberate long after the kinetic fighting has finished. There is perhaps no better example of that than Cyprus, where Government officials, all the way up to the level of the Prime Minister, have questioned Britain’s continuing sovereignty over our sovereign base areas there. May I ask the Prime Minister what he has done to reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that Britain is a trusted and reliable neighbour and partner, and that our continuing sovereignty is immutable?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I assure him that I have spoken to the President a number of times about the bases and about security in particular—which is, of course, a concern to him and to his public—and that those discussions are ongoing.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
This war, in which we are rightly playing no part, has my constituents fearing for the future, not least in relation to rising energy and fuel costs. That underlines the crucial importance of bringing down the cost of energy and securing energy independence; but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that, while the Government are taking the necessary steps to provide us with long-term energy security through renewable energy and new nuclear, they will go further in the short term and tackle some of the profiteering that is happening, as well as directly supporting hard-pressed families and small businesses in my constituency in respect of the cost?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We will bear down on any profiteering, at the same time as pushing forward at speed for energy independence.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister about one particular consequence of this war in the middle east, namely the rising cost of heating oil, diesel and petrol? Everyone is struggling—I have spoken to many businesses and people who are really struggling to pay their bills—but the support from the UK and Scottish Governments is only for people claiming benefits. When will the UK Government reconsider that approach and ensure that everyone, including working people and businesses, is receiving enough support?
The Prime Minister
We will set out the plans as they develop. Some of the ways in which we protect and support have to be universal, and, in fact, the cut in energy bills until the end of June is universal, but we are looking at the most appropriate support on a wider basis.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Fresh from a weekend knocking on doors, I can confirm to the Prime Minister that on the streets of my constituency there is no appetite for further involvement in this war. There are some—including, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition—who say that while they might not have chosen to start the war, now that the bombs are flying we have no choice but to support our allies. Will the Prime Minister confirm that President Trump’s America is not a reliable ally, that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Israel is not a reliable ally, and that we must work with our reliable allies in Europe to end the conflict and ensure that working people in this country do not pick up the bill?
The Prime Minister
We work with the Americans on a daily basis on defence, security and intelligence—it is important that I reiterate that position to the House—and, of course, we are working with them in relation to the use of our bases to take the action that is necessary to protect our civilians and our nationals. At the same time, we need to work more closely with our European allies on defence security, on energy and on the economy.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Prime Minister was right to mention the untold economic damage that this crisis has already wrought on households and businesses across the country owing to increased fuel costs, but does he share my fear and that of the agricultural sector that the prolonged closure of the strait of Hormuz may also feed through to higher food inflation? May I ask him what measures the Government are considering to help mitigate the potential consequences of a prolonged closure of the strait?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that issue. There will be consequential impacts beyond the immediate impact on energy, which is why we are monitoring and keeping under review the steps that we can take. However, I return to my opening point: the absolute focus must be on getting the strait reopened as quickly as possible, because all the time it is closed to free navigation the damage being done is being compounded, which is why it is so important that we work with our allies to that end.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Last week, President Trump was making the most outrageous and dire threats in order to try to reopen the strait of Hormuz; this week, he wants to keep it shut. Can the Prime Minister shed any light on the United States’s strategic objective behind this latest move, what can be done to reopen the strait of Hormuz, and what more this Government can do to protect our people from the economic consequences of this mess?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: I want the strait open, not shut. That is what we have been working on for the last few weeks, and we will continue to work on it. When I spoke to President Macron yesterday, we proposed pulling together a leaders-level summit later this year to continue the work that we are already doing. To be very clear with my hon. Friend and the House, that is to get the strait fully open, because that is the single most effective way to limit the damage that is being done to all our economies.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.
The Prime Minister
We discussed a range of issues. I will not go into all the details, but we did agree that where we are working together already, we should double down and do even more in relation to resilience—which goes to the hon. Lady’s question—both economically and defensively. We will take forward that work.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s continued clarity on the need for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, but Israel’s tactics in Lebanon—forced displacement, evacuation orders, 165 children killed and 87 medical workers killed—are straight out of its Gaza playbook. Does the Prime Minister agree that in Lebanon, as in Palestine, there must be proper accountability for these war crimes, because this age of impunity puts us all in greater danger?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It absolutely shows why we must keep pushing for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire. It is vital that we do so, and of course there must be accountability for all the actions that are taken, in any respect, in this conflict.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have written to me over the past two weeks about the situation in the Gulf. They are of course concerned about their energy bills and the cost of living, but overwhelmingly they are outraged at the actions of all the actors in this conflict—Iran, Israel and the United States. What they want from their Government is more and stronger leadership on the international stage to open the strait of Hormuz. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the United Nations Security Council with an emergency motion to get that done and to condemn the actions in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady probably knows, we have been supporting measures in the UN over the last two weeks, particularly some of those that were put forward by our Gulf allies, and I had the opportunity to discuss those last week in the Gulf. We will continue to work with them and others on building the necessary coalition to do all that we can to get the strait open.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s tough stance in response to President Trump’s demands to get involved in this conflict, and his commitment that Lebanon must be part of the ceasefire. Our constituents need us to give them hope that they will not have to continue to live in a world that is driven by the uncertainty of when the White House takes to Truth Social. We can do things to de-escalate conflict, and one of those things is to support the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, which the Prime Minister knows is at the heart of much uncertainty in the middle east. Given that the conduct of settlers on the west bank directly undermines the possibility of peace and the possibility of a Palestinian state, will he commit to including their conduct in his conversations about the ceasefire and how we can give hope to people in the middle east and peace to people around the world?
The Prime Minister
I reiterate to my hon. Friend and the House our support for the two-state solution, which is the only way to achieve a viable long-term peace in the region. Of course, the settler violence is a threat to that. It is wrong in principle, and we will continue to bear down on it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For years, and well before this conflict took place, Members across the House have called on the Government of the day to proscribe the IRGC. Regardless of whether it has been the Prime Minister or other Ministers answering, there has always been a pivot to economic sanctions against the IRGC. We know that the Iranian regime has found ways, through cryptocurrency and fake corporate structures, to evade those sanctions. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the effectiveness of UK sanctions against Tehran? On the presumption that those sanctions are failing, what precise action will he take to strengthen them?
The Prime Minister
The IRGC has been sanctioned in its entirety. In relation to what more we can do, obviously we have been looking at state-based threats, which will almost certainly require legislation—the hon. Member will be familiar with the review in that regard. There are further things that we can do, and hopefully we can work across the House on some of those issues.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is clear now that there was no plan behind this reckless war, and that the resulting energy crisis will have huge impacts both here in the UK and around the world. Can I thank the Prime Minister for his cool-headed approach in the face of pressure from the leaders of Reform and the Conservatives to follow the US blindly into this war? Does he agree that this demonstrates how important it is that we finally get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and continue our record investment in green energy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend on both fronts. It was very important that we made it clear from the start that we would not be playing any part in this war, not least because of the consequences. What the war has flushed out is the need to get off the international market and have independence of energy bills in this country.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
British drones flew over Lebanon hours before and after the Israeli massacre that killed at least 18 people in a Bekaa valley city, among 300 people across the region that day. We know that UK drones and surveillance flights have been used to feed operational information to the IDF during the genocide in Gaza, and it is deeply concerning that this may now be the case in Lebanon. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether these flights were co-ordinated with the Lebanese army? Was intelligence shared with Israel or with the United States? What is our armed forces’ role in this land grab and ethnic cleansing? Have any weapons supplied by the UK to Israel been used in Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
I have been clear throughout, and I will be clear with the hon. Gentleman: this Government are guided by the principle that any action we take, anywhere in the world, must have a lawful basis. That is the principle that I have applied throughout this conflict and throughout the time this Government have been in power.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister—and also the leadership from the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Adviser, I am sure—for the work that is being done. I welcome the news about trying to resolve the issues in the strait of Hormuz, but I share the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber about the situation in Lebanon and the west bank. Closer to home, the Resolution Foundation has stated that median working-age households will be hit by a £480 additional cost this year, which in my constituency is being described as the cost of Trump. Will the Prime Minister explain more about what can be done to assist households here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The single most important thing is to de-escalate and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we are working so hard with other countries to do so, because the impact that it is undoubtedly having on our economy is affected by how long the strait remains closed. That is why we have to focus on that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The price of energy is obviously important, but as important is the security of supply. Whether the Government like it or not, over 70% of our energy comes from oil and gas. The events of the past month must be a wake-up call to them: we must secure our supply. Luckily, we have a secure supply under the North sea, but—although his Ministers might say otherwise—the policies of the Prime Minister’s Government mean that we cannot produce it. When will he get serious about our energy security, end the ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and finally get the UK drilling again?
The Prime Minister
Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been very clear about that. Oil and gas are being produced 24/7 in relation to our energy supply, and it is really important that that happens. That will be part of the mix, but equally, if we are to get to energy independence, which we need to do, we need to go further and faster on renewables.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and commend his leadership in steering the UK clear of the Iran conflict and blockade. During this war, healthcare centres, hospitals and ambulances have been attacked. The Iranians now face acute shortages of care and medicines. What action is the Prime Minister taking to press all parties to comply with international humanitarian law and end the attack on healthcare infrastructure?
The Prime Minister
Let me be really clear: any attack on healthcare infrastructure is completely unacceptable. That is why we have been very clear that, in relation to our own actions and the actions of anybody else, they must have a lawful basis. That is the starting point for all the work we are doing.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Prime Minister rightly referred in his statement to defence security and energy security, but he made no reference to food security. That feels like a glaring omission, given the impact of the doubling of the price of red diesel for the farmers who produce our food. I wonder if he is even aware that, outrageously, England is now the only country in the UK and in the whole of Europe that does not use its farm payment scheme to actively support its farmers to produce food. In these troubled times, does he agree that that is a glaring omission, and will he turn around and change that?
The Prime Minister
Food security is really important. It actually comes under energy security in a sense, because it is the energy costs that are pushing, or could have the effect of pushing, in relation to food security. That is why it is very important that we are focusing on de-escalating the situation and reopening the strait of Hormuz.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Resorting to violence does not achieve anything, but it has left 2,000 Lebanese dead and 1.2 million displaced. As the Prime Minister is demonstrating, bilateral and multilateral dialogue is the way forward to get progressive change. Instead of just looking at increasing the defence budget, will he also look at increasing investment in diplomacy and development, which is crucial in this increasingly destabilised world?
The Prime Minister
The work that we are doing with other countries has to start with the political and the diplomatic. Of course we are looking at military planning, but you cannot have military planning without diplomacy. It is absolutely clear to me that the strait of Hormuz will not allow for safe passage until a ceasefire is in place. All the sectors involved in vessels going through the strait are clear that they will not be putting their vessels through until that is the situation, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right about diplomacy.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Prime Minister is absolutely correct to praise the service of our armed forces personnel, and I join him in doing so, but they are being let down by the failure to deliver the defence investment plan. That failure can only be the result of either inertia or incompetence within the Government. Which one is it?
The Prime Minister
I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out the armed forces and they did not increase defence spending. The last time we were at 2.5% was under the previous Labour Government. Now we are at that under this Labour Government. I appreciate all the advice, but after 14 years of failure I do not really need it.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
From Iran to Russia, the major security threats we face are pan-European challenges. The Prime Minister referenced the need, and our intention, to work more closely with our European allies within NATO. Will he set out what more we can do to be ambitious with those allies on the continent to strengthen our defence and security partnerships, especially in the run-up to the EU-UK summit in the summer?
The Prime Minister
There is more we can do on defence and security, such as collaborating and co-operating about the particular capability, in addition to the amount of money that we are spending. That is what we are focusing on with our allies in the EU.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Britain’s military co-operation with the USA and Israel has enabled Israel to commit acts of genocide against the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people, and has enabled the United States to undertake this massive illegal bombardment of Iran. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that from now on the military co-operation and supply of weapons and parts to both Israel and the United States will be suspended while this appalling war goes on in Iran, which is a danger not just to the peace of the whole region but, clearly, to the peace of the whole world?
The Prime Minister
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the permission to use our bases is strictly for defensive purposes, and in particular to protect our nationals in the region. We have 200,000 or 300,000 of our nationals in the region. Iranian strikes were coming into their range and into the Gulf states that I visited last week, hitting infrastructure and being deliberately aimed at our service personnel. It is my duty to protect them and I will continue to do so.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in thanking our armed forces who are protecting British citizens in the middle east, and I thank him, on behalf of my constituents, for his cool-headed leadership and firm decision not to join Trump’s illegal war. Will he reassure my constituents, who are worried about the cost of energy, that he is doing everything in his power to secure peace, reopen the strait of Hormuz and ensure that consumers are protected against rocketing energy prices?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance—that is what we have been doing particularly intensively in the past two or three weeks. We will continue to do so later this week when President Macron and I host the summit together.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Going further and faster on renewables is entirely compatible with new licences in the North sea. My constituents can see that the Prime Minister has very little power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but total power to order new licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank in the North sea. How can he stand there and say that energy independence is the goal while he tries desperately to get oil and gas from elsewhere, which he can do little about, and refuses to overrule his insane Secretary of State for Energy and ensure that we produce—[Interruption.] I withdraw that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the Prime Minister do so while refusing to overrule the crazy policies of the Secretary of State for Energy, who insists on not producing oil and gas here? It makes no sense. Prime Minister, get a learning, get a teaching—but make sure it is not with the Energy Secretary.
The Prime Minister
As I say, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. Decisions on Jackdaw and Rosebank will be taken according to the legislative procedure, which is the right way to do it. [Interruption.] We could legislate, but it would probably take longer. Oil and gas will be part of the mix, but in the long term, the only way to get energy independence is to go further and faster on renewables, which is what we are doing.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Japan, Turkey, China and India have already been in negotiation with Iran to try to secure safe passage for their vessels through the strait of Hormuz. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to visit the Gulf states and their leaders. He knows the importance of the strait to those economies. Did he receive any assurance from them that they would not try to negotiate with Iran to salvage their own economies? Any tacit acceptance by those states of Iran’s right to control the strait would set a terrible precedent and empower Iran’s leverage in its nuclear ambitions.
The Prime Minister
This matter came up in all the conversations that I had, and I assure my hon. Friend that there was absolute clarity among all the leaders with whom I spoke that there must not be any conditions or tolls, or anything that increases the chokehold over the strait of Hormuz in particular, which is very important to the Gulf. We have fought for the principle of freedom of navigation for many, many years, and for good reason.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
At the beginning of Trump’s illegal war in Iran, we witnessed the bombing of a school that killed at least 168 people, including 110 children. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the UK Government have agreed a no-strike list of civilian infrastructure that must not be hit by US planes launching missions from UK military bases?
The Prime Minister
Let me be really clear about this: there must be a lawful basis for anything we do, and that includes what happens from our bases. That is why we have been very clear about the use of the bases and why we are monitoring the use of the bases on the terms that we set out.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Since we last met in this place, the President of the United States has had at least three positions on the strait of Hormuz: first, he said that opening it was not in his interest because the US did not need it and did not use it; secondly, he speculated that it might be a good idea to have tolls on ships passing through the strait in a joint venture with Iran; today, he is overseeing a blockade. I commend the Prime Minister for his consistent and calm leadership, which stands in such clear contrast with those incredibly erratic comments. Does he agree that this conflict will ultimately be concluded not by posts on social media, but by patient and persistent diplomacy?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why we are pursuing that patient diplomacy, which is an essential first step in getting the strait open, and we will continue to do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I would like to ask the Prime Minister about food security. In response to an earlier question, he suggested that the answer to food security was to go further and faster on renewable energy. Does he recognise that carpeting some of the country’s best farmland—indeed, some of the world’s best farmland—in Lincolnshire in solar panels is counterproductive to that aim?
The Prime Minister
I do not think it is counterproductive. Just to be clear, however, I will say that the most important thing for food security is ensuring de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we have been convening a number of countries for the past two and a half weeks, and will do so again later this week, to operate at all levels to try to get that done as quickly as possible. I understand the impact on the farmers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have to have that absolute focus on the work that we are doing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He will know that Yom HaShoah, a Jewish commemoration of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, begins tonight. We must never forget. But as this powerful memorial begins, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to flout international law by bombing innocent civilians in Lebanon and intimidating Palestinians in the west bank, under the cover of the US-Iran situation. What can the UK do to support the victims of Netanyahu and stop his ongoing destructive actions in all areas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. That is why it is so important that we stay anchored in our principles and our values, foremost of which is that any action we take or support must have a lawful basis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Following his ill-conceived and illegal war in Iran, President Trump has now sent the US Navy to block the strait of Hormuz. Already this year, Trump has unlawfully invaded Venezuela and threatened to annex Greenland, invade Cuba and quit NATO. He even accused UK troops and those of our allies of cowardice, before launching an unprecedented attack on the integrity of Pope Leo. Clearly there is nothing sacred or off limits to this man, yet there was not a single mention of Donald Trump in the Prime Minister’s statement. Given the catalogue of illegality and bullying, does the Prime Minister still believe that President Trump is a stable, reliable and trustworthy ally?
The Prime Minister
Can I remind the hon. Member that every day we work with the US on defence, security and intelligence sharing—
The Prime Minister
When I say the US Administration, I mean President Trump. He is the President. We share intelligence on a daily basis. That intelligence safeguards people in all countries across the United Kingdom, and in my view it would be foolhardy to give up the co-work we do, which is vital and safeguards the lives and interests of so many people in this country on a daily basis.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The disruption in the strait of Hormuz is having a real, growing impact on ordinary working people across the world and in my constituency, where many are already struggling to make ends meet—something the Prime Minister and I discussed when we met a few weeks ago. Will he update the House and my constituents on what steps he is taking to resolve this issue as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I know that this will be of interest to my hon. Friend’s constituents, many of whom are worried by what they are seeing on their screens and the knowledge that it may impact on the cost of living. I can assure them that that is why we are working with allies to seek de-escalation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is not a remote issue; it is an issue that affects them, their cost of living and their household bills. That is uppermost in my mind as I take these actions.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Lebanese Health Ministry confirmed earlier today that 2,055 civilians have been killed since the start of this latest crisis, including 167 since Friday alone, so I join the Prime Minister in calling for the urgent ceasefire to include Lebanon. Since this crisis started, the Treasury has received over £200 million in additional VAT from fuel. Will the Prime Minister commit to using those funds in the UK to mitigate the cost of living crisis that the middle east crisis is causing?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member’s question underlines why it is so important that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire. We are looking across the board at all contingencies in relation to the support that we can put in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituents are horrified by the civilian toll of US-Israeli and Iranian military attacks, including the threats to basic civilian infrastructure. They are also very concerned about the long-term domestic impact of the closure of the strait of Hormuz, for example on food prices. First, can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that UK bases will never be used to target civilians or civilian infrastructure? Secondly, can he reassure them that the Government are planning for all possible domestic impacts?
The Prime Minister
Those are both very important points, and I can give my hon. Friend’s constituents that assurance on both fronts.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Oxfam has warned that the Gaza playbook is being repeated. The Israeli military is demolishing villages in the south of Lebanon, displacing more than 1.3 million people, killing more than 2,000 and injuring more than 6,400. Journalists are being killed by the Israelis. NGO workers are being killed by the Israelis. United Nations peacekeepers are being targeted by the IDF. It is all well and good for the Prime Minister to say it is wrong, but what tangible action will he take to stop Israel’s war machine in its tracks this time, and when will he do what he failed to do during the genocide in Gaza and say no to Israel and no to Benjamin Netanyahu?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right: the attacks are wrong, and it is important that we are clear on that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are clear on that. We need to work with our allies to follow through on both those propositions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I send my thanks and thoughts to our military personnel, particularly those on the Cornish Merlin that has been supporting our jets to defend British citizens since the Saturday after the conflict started. The strait of Hormuz issue has underlined the massive importance of energy independence in this country. Will the Prime Minister outline how we are seeking to solve that crisis in the short, medium and long term, particularly considering the wealth of natural resources we have in critical minerals and energy in Cornwall?
The Prime Minister
Let me underscore the point my hon. Friend makes about the wealth of that capability in Cornwall. We need to go further and faster on renewables, to make sure that we get energy independence. That is important for her constituents and for constituents across the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The manufacturing businesses that I have visited in my constituency recently are clear about the importance of both the availability and the affordability of energy. The longer business waits for a plan, the worse the damage will be, as investment plans are postponed and other costs are cut. When will the Government act to support businesses, particularly in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, hospitality and farming?
The Prime Minister
We have taken action in relation to particularly energy-intensive businesses. I recognise that those that fall outside that protection are extremely concerned. The most important thing that we can do for them is to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open, because that is the cause of energy prices going up.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The brutal Iranian regime is utterly appalling, but that statement is not necessarily true of Iran’s ordinary citizens, so I thank the Prime Minister for calling out President Trump’s words about obliterating a civilisation. The conflict has brought our energy security into sharp focus, which is why today’s announcement of a £600 million deal with Rolls-Royce for small modular reactors is so important. It is good for the country and good for jobs for my constituents in Derby. Will the Prime Minister go further to ensure that the small modular reactor programme is expanded and brought in at pace to support our grid?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Rolls-Royce project is hugely important, and I am very glad that we were able to announce it today. That is the first of the SMR projects, and it is really important that we take full advantage of such projects.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Given the threat that the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon present to world peace—in the middle east and beyond—does the Prime Minister not accept that action against the regime was inevitable, in order to cut back its military ability and its ability to blackmail the rest of the world by illegally stopping an important waterway? That has economic consequences for our country, but does he accept that, given the additional tax revenue for the Government from increased fuel prices, there is room to give extra support and that, in the longer run, we can extract our own oil and other resources, get the tax from that and have a secure supply that cannot be interrupted?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member. Iran’s nuclear capability and the development thereof, and its proxies, are of course a threat that has to be dealt with; the question is how. I have made my decisions based on the twin questions of whether any action that we take has a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. Those are the principles that have guided me, but that does not take away from the fact that those threats are there, and we have to deal with them in the most effective way possible. Of course, we need to look at the support that we can put in for businesses and individuals who are impacted by this conflict.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I commend our ongoing refusal to be drawn into this conflict. May I ask the Prime Minister what steps we are taking to ensure that UK bases are not used for offensive operations, and furthermore that they will not be used for any ill-advised US blockade of the strait of Hormuz, which would be economically ruinous?
The Prime Minister
The bases are strictly for defensive purposes, and we monitor that in order to make sure that that is and remains the case.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on Lebanon. We are seeing an Israeli military playbook from Gaza—collective punishment, forced displacement and attacks on health—being used in Lebanon without meaningful action from the UK Government. Will the Prime Minister please outline the specific steps his Government will take to ensure an end to Israel’s chronic immunity and impunity?
The Prime Minister
The immediate focus must be on ensuring that the ceasefire extends to Lebanon. That is crucial. Obviously, there is some diplomacy going on at the moment, but we need to keep that firmly in mind. We must work with others, not only on the question of Lebanon, but on accountability, which goes with the principle that any action should have a lawful basis.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on this issue. Unlike certain other world leaders, it is clear that he recognises the consequences that international crises have on the cost of living at home. My constituents feel that impact every time they go to fill up the car, which is made more galling by the fact that in Bracknell fuel is between 2p and 10p more expensive than in neighbouring towns. What conversations have the Government had with the Competition and Markets Authority and the sector at large to clamp down on that obvious unfairness?
The Prime Minister
I am conscious of the impact that this situation is having on fuel, and therefore on people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are working on a number of fronts, first to make sure that there is absolutely no profiteering from this, in relation to the price discrepancies, but also to ensure that we de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That will be the most effective way to get those prices down again, which will impact on everybody filling up their cars.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister knows that his Government’s coffers have been swollen by hundreds of millions by the extra tax take, particularly VAT, on rising fuel prices. Would it therefore be unreasonable to expect a socialist Government to practise some redistribution of wealth from Government to hard-pressed vehicle users, farmers and businesses who are being crippled by the price hike in fuel? Today, surely, he can give some light to consumers by saying that, instead of anticipating an increase in fuel duty, he will announce a decrease in fuel duty.
The Prime Minister
We are looking at all contingencies, and it is important that we do so. We will continue to do so, mindful of the impact that the hon. and learned Gentleman points out. However, there is no getting away from the fact that de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open is the single most important thing we need to focus on at the moment.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the positive steps that the UK is taking to promote a negotiated settlement to the war, and reassurance to shipping post-settlement through the straits of Hormuz, but it is clear that the war even thus far will have a significant impact on British consumers. He has talked about very welcome measures to support residents with energy bills, and those will be welcomed by my Dartford constituents, but would he consider additional measures to support those who are most vulnerable—those on the lowest incomes—with the cost of living as a result of the impact of this war?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We are considering what further support we can put in place—bearing in mind that de-escalation is the single most effective thing we can do.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The impact of this conflict is horrific for those in the line of fire. It is also causing significant financial distress for residents and businesses right across these isles. The Prime Minister stated that energy bills had gone down from 1 April, but for the tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas, that is not true, and for the tens of thousands of my constituents who use petrol and diesel to access essential services many miles from their homes, it is not true. Will he correct the record on that? Will he also tell us when he is actually going to do something to help those households that are in distress?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at this across the board, and the hon. Gentleman will know that, in addition to bringing household energy bills down by £100 from April until the end of June, we also announced support for those who use oil to heat their homes. We need to look more closely at this across the board.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
President Trump told the world that this was about liberating the Iranian people, but you do not liberate people by murdering 165 Iranian children in an illegal attack. What we are witnessing now is absolute madness, with Donald Trump seeking to implement collective punishment not just on Iranians by closing the strait of Hormuz but on the wider global community, including British families, who are seeing a price rise in fuel, food and utilities. When will the Prime Minister build the courage and strength to state that the attack and the continued action are illegal under international law? If he seeks to prevaricate, will that not just show how weak and embarrassing this Government have become?
The Prime Minister
We are one of the countries that are pulling together a coalition to deal with the impact of this by de-escalating the situation and seeking to get the strait of Hormuz open. That is the most important thing for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, for my constituents and for people across the country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
First, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) with regard to the Cornish Merlin helicopters from RNAS Culdrose in my constituency. The Prime Minister knows that he has the full support of the House when he says that he wants Lebanon included in the ceasefire, but surely he must accept that he could do a great deal more, first by ensuring that no UK arms components end up in the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Government, and secondly by ensuring that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken measures on both of those fronts in relation to the framework of law that we have in place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, it is important to recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts to try to find a way forward in the middle east. That is incredibly difficult and it should be recognised. There have been fuel protests in the Republic of Ireland just in the last week, and similar protests are planned for Northern Ireland this coming week. Last Friday, I spoke to the Ulster Farmers Union and some of the farmers expressing concern about the rise in the prices of red diesel and fertiliser. On Saturday, in Portavogie, members of the fishing sector told me they were concerned about the rising price of diesel for their boats, and HGV users spoke to me last Friday and Saturday to say the same thing. The Republic of Ireland is giving some €5 million—£4 million in sterling—every day for the next 13 weeks to help those sectors. If the Republic of Ireland can do it, Prime Minister, please do the same for us in Northern Ireland and across this whole United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking across the board at what support can be put in place and at all the contingencies, but there is no escaping the fact that if we do not do the international work to de-escalate and get the strait open, we will be fighting an uphill battle, which is why we have to convene those countries and try to resolve what is a very challenging situation.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
May I join the Prime Minister in recognising and commending Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate dialogue in the pursuit of peace? It is, however, regrettable that a resolution has not yet been secured. I therefore ask him what assessment he has made of the breakdown in the US-Iran talks, of Israel’s role in the collapse of those talks, and of the ongoing strikes in Lebanon? Will he condemn the continued hostility, which is creating a fresh humanitarian crisis in a region already torn apart by Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians? Finally, does he acknowledge that it is long overdue that Israel’s aggression in the region should be forced to stop through sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties?
The Prime Minister
As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday ahead of the talks. We have been in touch again since the talks broke down about the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which is the prospect of still trying to find a way forward. We will work with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and others to try to ensure that we get that diplomacy, as far as we can, and to de-escalate the situation in that way.
Southport Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.
We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.
The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.
The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.
The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.
In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.
The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.
Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counter-terrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an independent Prevent commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.
This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.
I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.
In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.
In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event.
As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a
“merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’”
meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created
“significant obstructions to constructive engagement.”
Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions.
During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry:
“my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”,
who was from child and adolescent mental health services,
“even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”,
but
“in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”.
This contributed to the clear risks being missed.
The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an
“over-representation of young black men in detention”.
Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue.
The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future.
Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that?
I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:
“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”
He went on:
“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”,
and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest?
As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the inquiry’s initial findings. The Government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the House is united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he said, that is the very least that we owe the victims’ families and all those who have been affected by this horrific tragedy.
The shadow Home Secretary referred specifically to the testimony of Mrs Hodson, the headteacher. She gave evidence to the inquiry and I believe that her position was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the inquiry’s findings. Let me be absolutely clear: the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks. No other factors are relevant. It is clear, in relation not just to Mrs Hodson’s experience but to the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agencies, that at the heart of the problem was a failure to assess appropriately the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. He managed to slip through the cracks because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account. I will be working closely with Ministers from other Departments as we formulate our full response to the inquiry’s findings and set out our expectations of professionals, not just in health but in other public services.
On the diagnosis of autism, in his report Sir Adrian made it clear that it would be
“wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.”
However, he also found that the way that the perpetrator’s autism manifested itself increased the risk of harm that he posed to others. That shows the absolute importance of taking a case-by-case approach, making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is to be managed. Again, there are good lessons to learn for health practitioners and others in our local services when it comes to assessment of risk and how it is best managed.
On issues relating to communications after the attack took place, especially at the point when a lot of misinformation was being spread, particularly online, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there has already been a change in practice, having learned the lessons of what happened. There was a well-meaning desire to ensure that nothing was done that might prejudice a trial, but exactly how the rules are applied can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers, there is already a new Crown Prosecution Service and media protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to ensure that whatever information that can be readily and easily be made available is made available at the earliest opportunity. It will always be incredibly important that nothing is done that might prejudice a trial, but I know that the shadow Home Secretary will acknowledge that since this horrific attack there has already been a change in approach to communications by the Government and other agencies. In other instances and cases, the Government and other agencies have made much more information available to the media, and therefore to the public.
I know that the inquiry’s findings and the phase 2 report will be of great interest to Members across the House. I look forward to working not just with the official Opposition but with Members from all parties to ensure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy—that is what we owe all the victims of this case.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect Prevent to keep them safe, so can she reiterate what changes she will make to Prevent, as the Home Secretary in this Government, to help to stop an attack like this happening in the future?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the reliance that all of us place on the Prevent programme. We should rightly be able to place that reliance on the programme and ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be when it comes to preventing tragedies, diverting people away from potentially committing a terrorist act and driving them away from extremism more broadly.
We have already been delivering a number of improvements to the Prevent programme. There is new statutory guidance, improved training, new case management systems and much stronger interventions for people who are already on the programme. We also have a strengthened approach to managing repeat referrals; where there are a number of referrals, which individually might not have led to an onward referral to the Channel stream, the cumulative impact is now being taken into account. There is also a much more robust risk assessment tool. The totality of the changes that we have already made has put the programme in a much stronger position, but in learning of the findings from this inquiry, we will take more action as necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again.
The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months?
Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?
Shabana Mahmood
The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman is absolutely right; the sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying. That is why we must do everything we can to reform all these systems in our public services to make sure that no such incident can happen again.
There will be a comprehensive response from the Government on all of the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations. I intend for that to come before the summer so the House will have an opportunity to debate it. As we move to delivery of the Government’s response to the recommendations, I will keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might be needed.
In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery of knives. That is a way of directly responding to some of the issues we have seen in this case, whereby the perpetrator was able to slip through the system. That should not be possible in the future once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.
Let me turn to the question of the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but do not necessarily have an ideology, by those who have a mixed ideology, or by those who flit between having an ideology and not having one; there is a developing, complex picture of the sorts of threats that we face. We have made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still, and should be, referred to the Prevent programme. That remains the lead programme for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.
The inquiry recognises that there is a gap through which those who do not have a fixed ideology and are not vulnerable to terrorism might slip. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, and will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals, but I want to assure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that the Government are not simply waiting for phase 2 to report. We are already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for Prevent, but who present a risk that we are concerned about and who we believe might pose a risk of harm to others. We are thinking about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk in order to make sure those individuals do not slip through the net. As we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them, while we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with fuller recommendations in this area in future.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss.
The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”.
I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that
“We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”,
but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said, and associate myself with her remarks about the victims of the Forbury Gardens attack—about those who died and their families. She is absolutely right that we have been here far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I am very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future, we can and will make progress. As I know she will accept, that is the very least that we owe all the families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move forward. We all have to do more, and Government agencies all have to do more as well.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am standing up a taskforce to bring together all Government Ministers with relevant responsibilities, to make sure we begin work immediately on improving the systems and processes that are in place at the moment and that we are not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report—there will be more progress. We have taken steps to reform Prevent. I know that the Prevent strategy and the work it does has been of interest in this House for many years, and has been scrutinised very thoroughly. An intervention programme of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns—for example, the way that Islamist extremism might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria becoming prominent is different from how it presents now—and practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing. It will always be a work in progress, because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and regularly. That is something we should acknowledge. However, we can and will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that the programme does the job we all know it needs to do.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?
Shabana Mahmood
I would be happy to hear the hon. Lady’s personal experiences of the quality of that training. I think this is the first time that she and I have had an interaction on this matter, so I would be very happy to pick those issues up with her offline.
On the substance of the hon. Lady’s point, we must follow the findings of the inquiry’s chair, who said that there were five major failures in this case, including that no single agency took ownership of the risk that the perpetrator posed, that there was poor information recording and management, and that the behaviour was sometimes excused on the basis of the perpetrator’s perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. There were a range of factors in place, and we should follow the evidence and the findings of the inquiry’s chair. We will respond based on the failures that have been found.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
All of our thoughts today are with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie. They have already suffered the most horrific loss, and to have confirmation today from Sir Adrian Fulford that their loss was preventable is utterly unbearable. Sir Adrian’s report highlights the failure of the multi-agency safeguarding hub, which was exactly the place where joint responsibility between different agencies should have been held, and he also said that children’s services were not well equipped to manage a risk presented by a young person, as distinct from risks to a young person. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what plans she has to work with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, every professional working with high-risk young people knows exactly what to do when they are fearful that a young person is a risk to others, and is accountable for taking that action?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.
That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families, as are mine. One of the many aspects of what has gone wrong here relates to children’s mental health services. Will the Home Secretary please outline what we are doing about the workforce in children’s mental health services? There is a real shortage of people who are skilled in that area.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have already taken steps to shore up the provision of mental health services within the national health service, and I am joined today on the Front Bench by colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care. I know they are listening closely and will be absorbing the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made in phase 1 of his inquiry. I will be working with all Ministers across Government before we formulate our fuller response to all 67 recommendations, but let me assure my hon. Friend that the provision of mental health services will be critical to the work that the Government do as a result of this inquiry.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Home Secretary’s statement confirms the core failure that when everyone was responsible, no one was accountable, and we have seen that pattern before. We saw the same passing of the buck in safeguarding, in grooming gang cases and in mental health. We have heard today about reviews, frameworks and guidance, but not about enforcement. Can the Home Secretary tell this House plainly what consequences will follow if recommendations are not followed to the letter?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is one thing to bring about changes and to change professional practice, but that these things should be enforced properly. When the Government respond in full before the summer to all 67 recommendations, I will lay out our expectations. It is important to recognise that Sir Adrian Fulford does not make individual findings of fact in terms of individuals and those failings, because there was such widespread system failure. It is right that in the first instance the Government look at the wider systems we have in place, but ultimately, if there are failures within those systems, including individual failures, there should be accountability.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for her continued leadership on this issue. Can I join the whole House in sending my sympathies not only to the victims, but to their families? This was a dreadful crime, and I am sure that any parent in the Chamber will be, like me, rightly appalled by it. Having worked in education and in the charity sector, I saw an awful amount of buck passing when it came to mental health support and safeguarding issues. My view was always, “If in doubt, report it.” In this case, things were reported, but they were not taken forward, which is hugely concerning. Can the Home Secretary assure me that this buck passing, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), will stop and that there will be accountability and people will be held responsible for these issues?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right that the failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures in this case. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward, and recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward. Where somebody meets the Prevent threshold, Prevent will remain the lead institution for referrals. That referral and onward progression to the Channel stream should have happened here. If it had, we would be in a different position today. For those who do not fall within that threshold, we will need a wider system response. As I have said, I am trialling pilots in different local authorities to look at different approaches for what we might do with those individuals who are below the threshold. In the end, Sir Adrian Fulford’s work will give us the new framework and some guidance on the best agency to take the lead in different cases. When an agency takes the lead, or even if they are convening all the other agencies, there is an obvious form of accountability. That is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work but sometimes do not. Those are the key areas where lessons need to be learned.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she plan to provide any additional resource or funding to the Prevent programme? If so, does she have any initial idea as to where that may be targeted?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When the Government respond in full to the recommendations, I will set out any resource implications not just for the work of the Home Office, but for other agencies.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are recommendations for different Departments, including Health, to take forward, and I will be working closely with Ministers from across Government as we design our response to Sir Adrian’s recommendations. Violence fixation, the descent into nihilism and fascination with extreme violence demand a new public policy response from all of Government, particularly for those children who would not necessarily meet a test for clinical need, but who absolutely do pose a risk of serious harm to other people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?
Shabana Mahmood
Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.
Shabana Mahmood
Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very positive statement. Let me also associate myself with the events of a year ago, when the nation mourned for those three children. I think that every one of us recognised the horror of what took place, and our prayers and our thoughts are very much with the families even today, and especially with the parents. I think that is how we all feel.
This is a very full report, and I commend the author for his determination to ensure that political correctness did not influence it. It is clear that a sea change is required in departments so that they are less concerned about offending people and more concerned about protecting our innocents. What lessons can be learned to inform new procedures to ensure that there is accountability in the intelligence and security services in particular?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is cultural change that is needed, and that is what Sir Adrian Fulford’s initial recommendations in phase 1 were designed to bring about, along with practical measures to change the way in which risk is assessed and ultimately mitigated. The Government will respond fully to those recommendations, and will bring together every part of Government—every part of the state—to ensure that people are doing all that they should be doing to assess risk, because the only factors that matter relate to the risk posed by an individual to other people of significant harm of the type that we have seen in this case. The Government will ensure that that happens in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the state of the Diego Garcia treaty and the associated Bill, and—with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take this opportunity to update the House.
We have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia to the national security of the United Kingdom and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade. It is vital to the countering of terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and overseas.
As the House knows, the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. The Government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations, and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us and our allies was and remains real, as those on the Opposition Benches know full well. The status quo is untenable, and ignoring the situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous Government knew that, which is why they opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table, and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty. [Interruption.] I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but it would be better if we had some quiet and I could make the statement.
I am proud that this Government completed the process in May last year. The Diego Garcia treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom, and puts in place important safeguards to protect the base from outside threats. In short, the treaty ensures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security, and to the security of our allies, for generations.
The Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and security partnership was built. Of course, the previous Government knew that, which is why they took action to start the negotiations when they did. For that reason, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close co-ordination with the United States, under both this and the previous US Administration. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two Administrations, and found to be robust.
Throughout this process, we have always been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support. We had that support when the treaty was signed, and we have had it consistently since. President Trump called it “very strong” and “powerful”. Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a “historic agreement” that
“secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, and the United States’ support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset.
However, the position of the US President appears to have changed in recent weeks. This means that, in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level an update to the 1966 UK-US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is necessary to ratify the treaty. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual; in fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure that the governance arrangements for the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated in 1972, 1976, 1987 and 1999, and were rolled over in 2016. They now need a further update in the light of the Diego Garcia treaty. We have previously debated this issue in this House, and I know that my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place.
Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence, have been working with United States counterparts over many months and have made excellent progress in updating the agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to the new comments to which I referred, this process will obviously not proceed on the previously agreed timeframe. Because of the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia Bill cannot complete its passage in this parliamentary Session, and it cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The Government nevertheless remain confident that the Diego Garcia treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for us and our allies for future generations. We will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely with Mauritius.
In parallel with the geostrategic developments, there is the human story. I refer to the Chagossians, who have rightly been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members, and who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s. As I have said on many occasions, the Government deeply regret the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians—although I accept not all—who rightly see it as the only viable means of a sustainable programme of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. As I have said on many occasions, we also want to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly to the older generations.
These are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests. Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and considered reflection, not cheap political point scoring by Opposition parties—[Interruption.] They are absolutely proving this very point. They would put our security at risk and play reckless games.
The threats facing the future operation of the Diego Garcia base are real, as the Opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island. We will continue to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let me start my remarks by saying that the Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement, rather than being dragged here through an urgent question, and by stating the factual and accurate position that the treaty will not go forward. However, once again he has been left carrying the can for the Prime Minister’s epic failure of statecraft. Labour’s Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news that the ratification of the treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this Government.
Let us be clear: the surrender treaty is Labour’s mess. As the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister’s top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left-wing lawyer friends and surrender the Chagos islands, at an enormous cost to British taxpayers. He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude the negotiations, and rushed and blundered into the treaty. The Government inexplicably announced it to the world just before Mauritius went into an election. When the Mauritian Government with whom they agreed the deal got kicked out, the new Mauritian Government—guess what?—demanded more concessions from Britain, and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. The Government put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromised the special relationship with the United States, they ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Chagossian community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers’ money to lease back a land that we own. Then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States.
Having been to the United States recently, I am not in the least surprised that the Administration have sought to stop the deal, because they can see what we have been saying for a long time. It is the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. While Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and Reform has gone from suggesting that we sell the Chagos islands to the US to suggesting that we give them to the Maldives, the Conservative party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender at every step of the way, to make sure that we keep Chagos British and that we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers.
It is the Conservatives who have exposed the full £35 billion cost of the deal. It is the Conservatives who have dismantled Labour’s outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with Britain’s adversaries. It is the Conservatives who have brought to the fore the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening its partnerships with Russia, China and Iran. It is the Conservatives who have been pressing the Government for months on their totally inadequate answers about why the anti-nuclear Pelindaba treaty would apply to Diego Garcia. And it is the Conservatives who have supported the Chagossians at every step of the way, given them a voice and spoken up for them.
Our questions and debates in this House and the other place have held Labour to account and forced the Government into the position set out today. Although the surrender and the whole process have now been ripped up, I want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian Government have announced that a UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the Minister tell us who is going, and what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen?
We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British Government, so can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? Will the Labour Government commit to spending the money that they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants? It should now be clearly allocated for the purpose of this fundamental resource.
Can the Minister confirm in no uncertain terms that as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate it? On the Chagossians, if the islands stay British, is it the Government’s intention to look at resettlement options? Will the Minister rule out any new legislation in the next Session, even if it is not in the King’s Speech, so that the surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only Bill that the Government should take forward in the next Session is my original Bill to make sure that Chagos remains British.
Stephen Doughty
I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.
Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.
I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.
The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.
The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for working over many months with our allies on this issue to reach agreement in our national interest and theirs. He has remained consistent on this issue and has given many updates on it. I wish I could say the same about the Opposition. Their short memory, their flip-flopping and their complete disregard for national security are very similar to the position they have got themselves in with Iran—very, very similar. They are laughing in the face of real threats to our national security.
I am actually quite concerned, because it seems to me that the status quo is not in our national interest. What does being without a treaty mean for the long-term access to the base, for us and for our allies?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend sets out the fundamental issue: the risks to the operation of the base, which the Opposition knew all along. That is why they started the process, to which we have responded with this treaty, which protects our security and that of our allies. I will not speculate about the coming of those risks, but we know that we need to put things on a secure footing. We know that the treaty was the best way to do that. We know that this was agreed under two Administrations across the United States in an inter-agency process. We continue to believe that it is the right way forward, and we will announce our business in the usual way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I genuinely thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of it, and for his long engagement with me on these issues.
The process for negotiating this treaty has been, I am sorry to say, utterly shambolic, from its beginning under the previous Government to its demise under this one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. and gallant Gentleman says, “Why did we finish it?” I am sorry to tell him that they did not. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous Government.
As this Government shelve the legislation, they must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued the process, specifically their inability to secure fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters; their reluctance to adopt measures that would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the Government of Mauritius; and their wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including but not limited to the right of return to the Chagos islands.
Aside from the Government’s apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of the treaty, the most objectionable aspect of the process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future. The provisions of this treaty, shamefully, failed again to affirm those rights, so if the treaty ever does return to this House, the Government would do well to observe and understand the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to secure genuine rights for Chagossians and help to buck the historical trend of that community being left out of decisions about its own future.
I have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the Government have now abandoned their proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians? Will the Government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? If so, how does the Minister assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion?
In conclusion, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident population who would be—
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for his continued engagement in good faith throughout the process. I can absolutely assure him that in due course we will return to the issues that he and his colleagues discussed with us and the concerns that they expressed in amendments in this place and the other House, but I have to reject his assumption that the process has somehow met its demise. It has not been abandoned. We have always been clear about the need for agreement on the US-UK exchange of notes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Chapman in the other place on 18 November:
“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 713.]
We have always been clear about the processes that need to be followed in parallel. It is regrettable that there has been a delay and that we have run out of time in this parliamentary Session, but the facts have not changed as to the need for the treaty or the need for the processes and legal provisions to be put in place.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises concerns about the Chagossians. He and I have discussed those concerns on a number of occasions. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community; there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by the delay with the treaty, not least for the very reason to which he refers, which is that we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement. I re-emphasise our commitment to restarting, at an appropriate time, the heritage visits, which are so important. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the current situation does not allow that, but we will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for heritage reasons.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The test of bad legislation is always whether it contains carte blanche Henry VIII powers—in this case in a thin and flimsy Bill—that grant the Government the right to do anything they like with the legislation, even after it has passed. That made it a dog of a Bill, but now the Government have paused it—or returned it, or U-turned, or whatever they are calling it. The Chagossians’ rights lie at the heart of this matter, so can I take the Minister back to the statement he made about the Chagossians? He talked about them wanting to come to some conclusion about their ability to return to the islands. The BIOT Supreme Court ruled that section 9 of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004, which barred the right of abode to Chagossians, was illegal, so why have the Government mounted an appeal against that, to ensure that it is illegal for them to go to their islands? Does he think the Chagossians have no right to go to the islands, or that they do have a right? Which is it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar with the history, so he will know the judgments in the courts of England and Wales on the matter of the right of abode. I am not going to comment on ongoing legal proceedings, save to say that we were disappointed by the position that was taken. Our understanding is that the BIOT is appealing that judgment and we have taken an interest in that matter.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister talks about convenient amnesia, but he did not go back to discuss what the previous Labour Government did. All the way back in 2008, Gordon Brown met Navinchandra Ramgoolam, when he was the Prime Minister of Mauritius for the first time, and agreed to establish a dialogue on the British Indian Ocean Territory. The first official meetings took place in January 2009—Wednesday the 14th, to be precise—and the topic of sovereignty was discussed. I appreciate that the Minister might not have the details to hand, so he is welcome to write to me, but will he outline exactly what discussions took place with the previous Government, up to the end of their time in 2010, that set the conditions for the subsequent ICJ appeal that Mauritius put in following that discussion?
Stephen Doughty
I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, but what I am absolutely clear about is that it was his Government who started the process of negotiations, under the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who conceded the principle of sovereignty and conceded a financial element, and did not put in place some of the key security provisions that we were able to secure in the negotiations. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The US navy began a blockade of Iran at 2 pm this afternoon. Has the US been granted permission by the British Government for the use of the deepwater port at Diego Garcia as a staging post for the imposition of that blockade?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on operational details from the Dispatch Box, but the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about which requests from the United States have been acceded to and which ones have not. He answered an extensive statement on that this afternoon, and I hope that that suffices.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady asks an important question and, to be fair, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked it too. I can absolutely confirm that the costs associated with the treaty cannot be paid without the relevant legislation being passed, so she is absolutely right on that point. What I will say is that there has been wilful misinformation from a number of quarters on the costs associated with the deal. We published the forecast costs and the methodology used when we presented the treaty. We have answered questions on that many, many times, and the fact is that the costs associated with it are simply not what is being presented by the Opposition Front Bench—or indeed other parties in this place—particularly compared with, for example, what France pays for its base in Djibouti. This is 15 times larger, with immeasurably more capability, and we are not going to scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Another day in this Parliament, another chaotic U-turn. I thank the Minister for being the latest to make the long walk from No. 10 to over here to announce said U-turn, and thank the one, solitary Labour MP who could be encouraged to stand up for the Government. I accept that the Tories made a mess of this, but I have to say that the excuse given by the Minister—that Donald Trump’s unpredictability was something that could not be foreseen—is something people will find very difficult to believe. On that lack of foresight, this is a serious issue and I know that the Minister treats it seriously, so will he tell us how much money has been wasted on this so far, what the implications are for national security, and what the implications are for the international rules-based system and the rights of the Chagossians who have been caught in the middle of this sad, sorry mess?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman raises many, many issues. The situation is clear for all to see. I have set out why the legislation is not able to make the progress we had hoped it would make in this parliamentary Session, but the merits of the deal and the need to secure the base for us and our allies stay unchanged. As I said, we are not going to scrimp on national security. When it comes to these capabilities, we will do what is right and in the interests of the British people.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on so valiantly trying to explain the inexplicable and reconcile the irreconcilable. I do not want to detain the House by quoting the whole Monty Python dead parrot sketch, but this is now an ex-treaty; it is no more; it has shuffled off its mortal coil.
Coming back to the Chagossians, why can the Government not just honour what the Court has decided about the right of return? Why are they now trying to frustrate the survival and safety of the Chagossians who have returned, taken there by my good friend and former Conservative MP Adam Holloway, who has organised the expedition despite the Government? Why are the Government now mounting operations and sending police officers and customs operators to frustrate the process of safety equipment going to the expedition to support the Chagossians? Why have they blocked a water purifier and even medical supplies? They have blocked a fast boat that would provide emergency evacuation, so these people are more at risk as a result of the Government. Is that the Government’s policy, after all the wrongs that have been done to the Chagossians?
Stephen Doughty
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he is simply wrong on this point about the Chagossians. The reality is that there is a range of views within the Chagossian communities. I have taken them incredibly seriously, including those who do not agree with the treaty. There are many who do agree with it. I am afraid that the incident he refers to, in terms of the illegal arrivals on Peros Banhos—
Stephen Doughty
They are illegal and they are not appropriate; it is a dangerous environment and it is not appropriate for them to be on there. We are disappointed by the judgment that was made. The BIOT is appealing that judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to provide him with a list of items that were sought to be provided on that island, I think he would be quite shocked. I am sure he would agree with me that it is not appropriate to have a drone flying on those islands, or other items that are not necessary. This is a dangerous and unsafe environment. Quite frankly, I am astounded that the Opposition, and the other party with one representative in the Chamber, are attempting to support people arriving illegally by boats on an island that is not safe for them. That is, quite frankly, extraordinary.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and commend the Minister for the way that he has framed it. He has been absolutely spectacular, if I may say so, over the months in trying to defend the indefensible, as indeed he has been today with this U-turn on steroids. May I press him on the matter of money? He has been Delphic in his response to two of my hon. Friends on the demands that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will be making of this Government, given this utter mess and the fact that spending plans were already being made on the back of the largesse that the Minister had been talking about. Will he confirm that not a penny piece will be passed to Mauritius in either payments or in compensation, now that the treaty has gone the way of the apocryphal Norwegian Blue, and tell us what legal notes have been passed between the two Governments, given that plainly this thing is now not going to be happening, in relation to moneys in compensation that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will now be demanding of the UK?
Stephen Doughty
I answered that question very clearly a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin).
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office be consulted, and will the British Chagossians be brought into the discussion prior to the mission on 22 April? Will a British Chagossian be accepted on to the actual delegation, so that they will be represented? Will the Government be speaking to the Chagossians who have just come on the boat? Its seems to be the only small boat the Government are interested in stopping. Will they actually be helping, rather than hindering?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Lady’s last point, I am sure she can see the absurdity of what she and others appear to be supporting. This is a dangerous political stunt that is putting lives at risk. It is not safe or proper to be on those islands. We are very clear about that; we have communicated that very clearly. Obviously, the BIOT Administration will take whatever steps they deem necessary under their laws and administration to ensure adherence to their laws and the safety and security of individuals. I am genuinely astounded that people would support this action, which is putting lives at risk and is deeply irresponsible.
On the wider questions about the Chagossians, I have been clear throughout that there are a range of views within the communities, including the British Chagossian communities. I have met them and heard those views, including difficult views from people who do not agree with us on this issue; I am not afraid to do that, and neither are the Government. It would not be practical to take just one person as representing a whole community. We have sought to ensure that the voices of Chagossians are heard throughout this process, such as in the proposed trust fund, by securing places on the board. As I have set out on a number of occasions, we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that if they were not present at the beginning of the statement, they will not be called.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This process is, among other things, about protecting British access to the communications spectrum. That is why the previous Government started it, and why the current Government are carrying it on. If we are not able to pass the treaty and ensure that access, what is plan B?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out on a number of occasions very clearly the risks to the operation of the base; they were well understood by the Opposition, in particular by those who served as Ministers in the previous Government. It has consistently staggered me that the Opposition attempt to gloss over all of that, as well as the risks posed to our operations and the capabilities that keep us and our allies safe. I think they will look on the political point scoring they have been doing with regret in future years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I doubt whether many people across the nation are watching the Parliament channel at the moment to see this statement. The Minister started off saying that this space is critical to our national security, allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability in global trade, is vital for countering terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and abroad. Anyone watching this debate might then ask why the devil, if we owned it, we were giving it back to the Mauritian Government to then lease it for £35 billion from a Government who are more interested in some of the states that are hostile to our interests in the area. Does the Minister not agree that if the nation is listening to this debate, it will be totally confused, or else think that this must be one of the most incompetent Governments ever?
Stephen Doughty
I simply must thoroughly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our national security and that of our allies has been paramount in putting forward this treaty and this deal to secure the Diego Garcia base not only for us, but for our allies and our Five Eyes partners. That is why they all welcomed it. It is why the treaty has gone through extensive processes in this country, in the United States and with other partners. I will not apologise for that. The duty of this Government is to protect the people of this country, our partners and our allies. That is exactly why we have proceeded on this basis and why this treaty is needed.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have two questions to the Minister, if I may. I welcome the retreat from this Bill and this deal, which ill served the taxpayer and our national interest. First, are the Government now officially withdrawing the Bill, rather than merely pausing its passage through Parliament? Secondly, the Minister was very clear earlier that no payment would be made under the treaty to Mauritius. Can he confirm that no goodwill payment, ex gratia payment or any other payment will be made to Mauritius outside of the treaty as a way of saying sorry? Frankly, we have nothing to say sorry for.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have affection, understands the procedures of this place. He understands that the Bill is going to time out because of the upcoming Prorogation and that it cannot be carried over because of the progress that it has made during this Session; he will understand the procedures around that. It is disappointing that we saw so much game-playing around the Bill, particularly from the other place. That is the position. I have also set out the position on the costs.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I very much welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the Bill. I have two questions about the future commitment of this country to the Chagossian people and the Chagos islands. First, will the Government commit that if there is to be any future constitutional change to the status of the islands, the Chagossian community here in the UK will be given the chance to express its view through a referendum of that community? My second question relates to the heroic landing by my friend and new fellow Reform member, Adam Holloway, who made the brave journey to Reform, as well as journeying to the Chagos islands with a group of islanders. I remind the Minister that those people were forcibly removed from their homes by a Labour Government in the 1970s. The infrastructure that they left behind is now descending into jungle. Why will the Government not recognise that they have a right of abode there, and why are the Government frustrating the very legitimate efforts of philanthropists to support them to re-establish their community?
Stephen Doughty
Again, I am genuinely shocked that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his party as a whole, would support a reckless political stunt of this nature and promote arrival on an island that is not suitable for human habitation, with lives being put at risk. That he and his party would support and encourage people to be put in that position is, quite frankly, shameful and absurd, given their commentary on other issues in relation to irregular migration. I find it absolutely astounding. I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman here.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. There have been many discussions over the amount of money that was going to be paid, and the methodology and how it was reached. I am prepared to park those discussions on the basis that provision has indeed been made in the Government’s budget lines to pay for this treaty, which is now in abeyance. For the time that it is in abeyance, can the Minister tell us that 100% of the amount that would have been paid to Mauritius will now go into the defence budget and pay for hard power?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am not part of the Treasury team, and it is not for me to respond to those points. In the interim, we remain responsible for the BIOT Administration, as well as the long-standing arrangements between us and the United States regarding the crucial operations on the base. The hon. Gentleman is aware, as I have set out on many occasions, of the priceless value of the capabilities there. That is why we set out this treaty and this deal as the best way to secure those capabilities.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister was asked a very precise question by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). That question was this: outside of any monetary obligations under the treaty, will a single penny be paid to Mauritius going forward? It is a very simple question. It is nothing to do with the treaty; the treaty is gone in that sense. Outside of any obligations under the treaty, will there be a single penny paid to Mauritius? Surely the Minister can answer that question, rather than continuing to dodge it.
Stephen Doughty
We have relationships with many different countries around the world, including through our ODA programmes, through different multilateral programmes, and through our investments and all sorts of things that are in the British national interest. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the costs associated with this treaty cannot be paid without the treaty. I have been clear about that from the beginning. He can impugn it all he likes, but those are the facts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for outlining the reality of where we are today. I think it is important that we understand what this means. The Minister has also made clear the failings. There were Chagossians who asked us to retain control of the islands due to human rights considerations and other issues. While the future of the treaty is uncertain, what will the Government and the Minister do to engage with those who are disenfranchised and uncertain due to the treaty failure?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will of course continue to engage with the Chagossian communities, including with those who disagree; I am absolutely committed to that, as I have been throughout. As I have said, there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by this delay. I think it is important that their views are understood and respected, as well as the views of those who oppose this treaty.
North Atlantic Submarine Activity
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on north Atlantic activity. Let me begin by thanking the many members of our armed forces who are currently deployed in over 30 operations across the globe. Their efforts are often unseen by the British people, but they are always appreciated. They defend the very freedoms that we enjoy.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary revealed details of one such operation. While the focus of many has been drawn to the middle east, UK armed forces, in partnership with our allies, have been deployed to deter the increased Russian activity that we have witnessed in the Atlantic. The specific operation involved a Russian Akula-class submarine and a concurrent deployment of two specialist submarines from GUGI—Russia’s main directorate of deep-sea research.
Last November, the Defence Secretary outlined to the House how GUGI vessels, including the spy ship Yantar, are directed by President Putin to engage in hybrid warfare activities against the UK and its allies, specifically around critical undersea infrastructure. Their mission is to survey pipelines and cables during peacetime and then potentially, if required, sabotage them in conflict.
In response to the Russian subsurface activity, the Defence Secretary deployed a Royal Navy warship and a Royal Air Force P8 aircraft alongside allies and partners to ensure that the Russian vessel was monitored during every phase of the operation. The Akula subsequently retreated home, having been closely tracked throughout, and we continued to monitor the two GUGI submarines when they were in and around UK waters and, of course, beyond. Our armed forces left them in no doubt that they were being monitored, that their movements were not covert as planned, and that their attempted secret operation had been exposed. The two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters and headed back north, and this operation, which lasted more than a month, has now concluded.
In often treacherous conditions, our pilots racked up over 450 flying hours and our frigates sailed several thousand nautical miles. Some 500 British personnel were involved in the response. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to every single person involved.
We exposed this military operation undertaken by Russia for three key reasons: first, to send a message to Putin that he failed to remain covert, and that any attempt to damage critical undersea infrastructure will not be tolerated and cannot be denied; secondly, to demonstrate that even with significant capabilities and personnel deployed in the middle east, we will always do what is necessary to protect our homeland; and thirdly, to highlight a significant operation carried out by our armed forces, who met this challenge with the characteristic determination and professionalism that we all know too well.
This operation reminds us why the seabed matters, especially for the island nation of Britain: it connects us to everything, and that connection is sustained beneath our waters without interruption through a vast network of cables and pipelines on which much of our way of life relies—much of the gas that heats our homes, 99% of international telecoms and data traffic, and trillions of pounds of global trade each day. Because the seabed matters to us, it is a prime target for our adversaries.
The UK’s undersea network is highly resilient, but the threats are increasing, so we are stepping up our action to defend it, including by providing an extra £100 million for our vital P8 submarine-hunting aircraft; launching our Atlantic Bastion programme to combine the latest autonomous technologies with the best warships and aircraft to create a British-built hybrid naval force; and making the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, after years of hollowing-out and underfunding by various Governments. The threat is clear, and our resolve to confront it is absolute. That is why this year we are deploying our carrier group where it is most needed—the north Atlantic and the High North—and supporting NATO’s new mission, Arctic Sentry.
I want to put on the record our thanks to our allies, with whom we have co-operated closely throughout this operation, including Norway. Our shared commitment to confront Russian aggression in the north Atlantic is at the heart of our Lunna House agreement, and together we are now building a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and new uncrewed systems.
Let me say a few words on Ukraine, from where I returned just last week. Today, two wars on two continents are being fought at the very same time. Putin wants us distracted while he steps up strikes on Ukraine relentlessly, and indeed at enormous scale, with around 7,000 attacks a day on the front line and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone. We must always remember our duty to Ukraine and recognise that Russian aggression is growing across Europe once again.
Let me finish where I began, with praise for our people. We have the very finest armed forces that a nation could hope for. They are second to none. As I speak, we have personnel deployed across every domain, every moment of the day, in every part of the world. They are in constant confrontation with our adversaries, from the depths of the seabed to the reaches of space. When a crisis erupts, as it has done in the middle east, I understand people questioning why all UK military assets and personnel have not been sent to deal with it. But as demands on defence rise, we must deploy our resources to best effect across multiple priorities.
Because of our increase in defence investment, we will be able to call on more and more resources in the coming years. As we defend our interests and partners in the middle east, we will tackle increasing threats in the High North. We will stand with Ukraine. We will meet our NATO obligations. Above all, we will always fulfil the first duty of government: to protect our homeland and keep the British people safe. I commend this statement to the House.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. With all eyes on the middle east, let us not forget that Russia remains the most acute, persistent and active threat to the United Kingdom. Putin’s goal of conquering Ukraine is unchanged, and that continues to place our entire European continent in jeopardy. His ongoing nefarious activity, most notably in our own territorial waters, should be a stark wake-up call. We must start acting on the threats that are visible and right in front of us.
We may be critical of the Government’s tortoise-like approach to giving defence what it needs—slow and steady does not win this race, and it certainly does not keep us safe—but what does unite us is the full-throated support for the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, who keep the wolf at bay in these dangerous times. I pay particular tribute to all those who are serving in the middle east at the moment, those who served in recent Atlantic operations, and especially those who crew our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols, 24/7, 365 days a year, every year.
When the Secretary of State came to this House last year to highlight the actions of the Russian spy vessel Yantar, he told Putin:
“we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1016.]
That was the right message, but at some point simply saying “We see you” is not enough. Words must be backed by action.
This is not just a question of traditional defence. There is a growing and under-appreciated threat to our national resilience and our way of life. Just 65 undersea cables carry 99% of global communication, and a far smaller number of pipelines and interconnectors link our gas and electricity supplies to others. Can the Minister guarantee that there are no hostile devices, kinetic or otherwise, on, near or underneath any of those cables, pipelines or interconnectors? The reality is that he cannot. The Secretary of State said with confidence that there was no sabotage on this occasion, but what of the many other incidents in UK waters—in the Baltic, in the cables running to North America, west of the British Isles, where monitoring capacity is limited at best?
The truth is that we do not fully know how secure our critical underwater infrastructure is. That is why we are dismayed that the much-touted defence readiness Bill has been delayed by a full year. Worse still, at a time that demands cross-party unity, it was deeply disappointing to hear the Prime Minister flatly reject the Leader of the Opposition’s offer of greater engagement earlier today. That was the wrong call.
On Russia’s shadow fleet, when the Prime Minister announced on 25 March that British forces would be permitted to board sanctioned vessels transiting UK waters, we rightly supported that decision. The Chief of the Defence Staff, when asked at the recent London Defence Conference, said plainly, “We are ready”. Yet no action has been taken. We set a red line, and we have watched Russia repeatedly cross it. Worse, Russian military vessels are now accompanying shadow fleet ships, deliberately escalating the situation. This is deterrence in reverse.
The Minister and I know better than anyone else in this Chamber the very real challenges of boarding vessels at sea, and the serious legal questions surrounding what happens to a ship and its crew once the decision to seize them is made. These are the same challenges that I faced while serving in the Royal Marines and boarding pirate vessels off the coast of Somalia. Back then, those legal and logistical hurdles were just as real, but it was clear that the global economy was being directly impacted by piracy and that we had to act, so we found a lawful way to do so. Why can we not do that now, when the situation is far more grave?
It has been reported that the Attorney General has denied the legal basis for interdiction. If that is the case, let me ask the Minister this directly: what is the Government’s current position? Can he tell the House how many sanctioned vessels have transited UK waters unchecked? Russia is brazenly moving military supplies through our waters. That must be met with robust action, not statements.
Today’s statement is a start, but only a start. It is clear that the Government are not moving fast enough to deter our adversaries. Deterrence requires capability, and capability requires funding. I know that the Minister has not had sight of the defence investment plan, but can he at least tell the country when it will be published? Seven months delayed, it is simply becoming a farce. Does he agree with the Conservatives and the Defence Committee that the Government must commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence within this Parliament, not the next?
The Conservatives have already identified savings that would deliver over £20 billion in additional defence spending. We want to go further, and we renew our offer to work across the aisle to find savings. The choice is simple: if we are serious about deterring Russia and other hostile states from the High North or our overseas bases, we must reach 3% on defence now, not later, and give our armed forces the resources they need to keep us safe.
Al Carns
We can agree that no sabotage took place this time from the Russian sub-surface activity off the coast of the UK. We have backed our words with action when it comes to deterring Russia, with £4.5 billion in UK military support to Ukraine last year and a total of £21.8 billion. The Ukraine defence contact group just raised an astonishing $45 billion to buy weapons, munitions and capability for the Ukrainians. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to board any vessels that meet the criteria—there is a lot of misinformation out there. Having very expensive frigates escorting every vessel at such range is putting significant demands on the Russian fleet and degrading its capabilities. Let me add that we have spent £5 billion extra this year alone on the defence budget, and by 2028-29 we will spend around £73 billion on it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the Defence Secretary for his public statement, which have increased public awareness about the growing threats that our nation faces. On behalf of the Defence Committee, I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in disrupting the Russian activity around our critical undersea infrastructure. This incident underscores the growing threat that Russia poses, and the need to increase defence investment now and finally to publish the defence investment plan.
Turning to the incident itself, I take on board the Minister’s words, but it has been widely reported, including publicly at the London defence conference, that Putin had explosives planted on our undersea cables. For the record, can he confirm whether Russians were involved in either sabotage or precursors to sabotage on or around our undersea cables?
Al Carns
The reality is that Russia failed on this occasion, and it failed because we exposed its activity, which meant that there was no way, shape or form that it could deny its activity in the first place. I was at the London defence conference and I heard certain discussions about undersea cables. I can confirm that no sabotage took place this time, but the Russians put a lot of effort into mapping and understanding our undersea critical national infrastructure, and we will do everything to map, track and expose it, should it take place.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world.
While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required.
As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure?
The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?
Al Carns
I am glad that the Government took a defensive stance on Iran. We were clear that we did not have a legal mandate, there was not a plan and there was no clear end state, and if we are going to put people in harm’s way, we need those three things before we can do so.
While the defence investment plan not has not arrived yet, five classes of ship or submarine are on order or being built, including 13 frigates on order—eight Type 26s and five Type 31s—which is a collaborative effort to ensure that our maritime capability is fit for purpose as threats diversify and increase, in particular in the High North. We are learning the lessons from Ukraine and ensuring that we have the best autonomous capability, and our Atlantic Bastion platform is moving in the right direction. We have worked exceptionally hard, and the Foreign Office is pushing as well, to sanction thousands of Russian individuals, companies and, of course, vessels, to reduce the illegal flow of resource back into Russia, which is funding the illegal and brutal war waged by Putin on Ukraine.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement. GUGI has been at work since the 1960s, as I understand it; it has been doing extensive mapping for quite some time. In our report on subsea cables, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy came up with a great many recommendations, with which he will be more than familiar. When it comes to the defence investment plan, may I draw his focus to our recommendation on a sovereign capability in repair ships? Will he promise to look at that or agree to meet me to discuss it?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his really focused question. We have been watching the underwater research programme for years now. We understand exactly what they are up to and why they are up to it. They understand some of the vulnerabilities—I would not say weaknesses—in the west, and they are trying to identify and, indeed, threaten them at a point in time of their choosing. I recognise the report’s recommendation on a sovereign capability to fix cables. We are working with industry and partners, and of course we have a multitude of capabilities within defence that can support the types of operations that may need to take place should anything happen to our undersea cables.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am delighted that the Minister has made this statement, because I have raised this issue a number of times in this place. My constituency looks directly at the High North, and it is off the coast of my constituency that this Russian activity took place—let us make no mistake about it. My constituents find it deeply worrying.
As the Minister himself has admitted, we have only so many surface ships. They are based mostly in Devonport and Portsmouth. The sailing time from the south of England to Orkney, Shetland or my constituency is a matter of days, and we have to move very fast in this situation with Russia. Let us remember history: before the first world war, Winston Churchill and others took the decision to relocate part of the fleet to Invergordon and to Scapa Flow in the Orkneys. Are we quite certain that we are basing the surface ships that we have—we hope we will have more—in the position where they need to be to keep a close eye on the High North and protect our vital strategic interests?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for a really focused question. Part of this problem set is about looking at early warning when systems appear, either in our waters or close to our waters, or indeed close to any critical national infrastructure. That is a multi-domain operation, ranging from space all the way down to other intelligence assets, which gives us very early warning of what is happening, where, when and why, and allows us to pre-position capabilities to meet them, or to ensure that we can understand exactly what they are up to and therefore put in an operation to deter that if required.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I was in Latvia at the weekend, where they very much know what the threat is from Putin and the Russians. I thank the Minister for his statement and the helpful way in which this has been described in public. It is clear that we need to do a lot more to explain to the British public what the threat is from the Russians and how it is getting worse—not least if we are to increase defence expenditure, as I have been advocating in this place for some time, and tough decisions have to be made. We need to have a better programme of education and information to demonstrate how serious a threat Putin and the Russians are to the security of this country.
Al Carns
I completely agree. A more effective and better understood communication and education plan about what those threats really mean to the population is essential. If I were to turn around to the population and say that there was a cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover, people in and around Jaguar Land Rover would be affected and would take notice. If I were to say that the cost of the attack on Jaguar Land Rover was half that of lifting the two-child benefit cap, that would resonate far more widely across the nation. If I were to say that cyber-attacks cost more than £10 billion last year alone, and that the MOD has seen a 50% increase in hostile state attacks, that would start to resonate. We need to ensure that we continue to communicate that narrative in the easiest way, but also that it resonates with every section of society. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Over decades, the backbone of our ability to detect Russian submarines has been provided by our towed array patrol ships, from Leander right the way through to our increasingly decrepit Type 23. Does the Minister agree that the logic of what he has said, given that the threat has increased significantly over the past several months and over the past couple of years, is that we should be looking again at the orders for eight Type 26s with 2087 towed array on the back of them, and upgrade that to deal with the threat that we now face? Where we are now is not where we were a few short years ago, when that order book for eight Type 26s was constructed.
Al Carns
I recognise the right hon. Member’s experience in this space. I would say that eight Type 26 towed array frigates is the right level. I would like to see our ability to cover the ocean expanded through the use of autonomy and some of the lessons that we have learned from Ukraine. That is why I talk about the Atlantic Bastion; major capability platforms matched with mass uncrewed systems will provide us with a far more effective way to find, deter and neutralise subsurface threats in the future.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I join the Minister in thanking our armed forces personnel who identified this threat and allowed us to take the action he has described. I note that real-terms defence spending fell by 22% in the eight years or so prior to 2017. It is this Government that are turning that around with fresh investment and more co-operation with the sector. We know that our undersea infrastructure is vulnerable to a great many threats and, as we face threats on a number of different fronts, we must not lose sight of that. We have a job, however, to explain to the British public why we need this investment. Can I encourage him, when or if we face a similar threat in the future, to make sure that the public understand that? It is a choice that might mean that we do not have the opportunity to spend in other areas of public life.
Al Carns
We have a job to ensure that we communicate with and educate the population on the whole variety of threats, whether it is the threat posed by Russia in Ukraine or the threat emanating from the High North that comes into the Atlantic. A lot of people say that we do not have a frontline with the Russians. The reality is that we do; it sits in the north Atlantic. But those are not the only threats. There are also threats in the influence space and, of course, in cyber-space, which we must compete with while also responding to contingency operations in the middle east, as hon. Members have seen us do over the last seven weeks.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister said, I think about three weeks ago, that the Royal Navy would go after sanctioned Russian tankers. Yet, if the press reports are to be believed, those very same sanctioned Russian tankers have sailed with impunity through the English channel. My question is this: why have we not done anything? Is there some legal bar, or is there a practical bar when it comes to Royal Navy resources to mount interdiction operations in the English channel?
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Government rightly continue to defend our people, interests and allies in the middle east, we must never lose sight of the war in Europe and our determination to always stand with Ukraine during this conflict?
Al Carns
I completely agree, and the key phrase is “never lose sight”. There have been more than a million casualties—Russia has taken more casualties than America took in the entire second world war—55,000 drones and missiles have been fired in the last year, thousands of tanks have been destroyed, and cities have been plunged into poverty, into the cold, with no lights and no hospital services across an entire nation. Why? All to support an individual’s ambition to rewrite history and rewrite international borders through the use of brutal force. Unacceptable.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Back in February, former Royal Navy officers and other expert witnesses warned the Defence Committee that although tapping an undersea cable is very difficult, they are vulnerable to sabotage, and more than three quarters of the UK’s natural gas is imported via undersea pipelines from Norway. Given Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, does the UK not need to press ahead faster with the Atlantic Bastion initiative? In light of recent defence budget pressures, can the Minister confirm whether funding levels are adequate to maintain long-term submarine detection and tracking capabilities?
Al Carns
I respect the hon. Member’s insight into this issue, especially given his constituency. Atlantic Bastion is moving forward fast; we are using some of the requirements and the needs in the middle east to see what we can test and trial. We are pushing forward as fast as we can. Taking the lessons from Ukraine and ensuring that they are inculcated into what we are doing in the slightly rougher and bigger seas in the north Atlantic is an exceptional challenge, but we are moving forward as fast as we can to do it. When combined with our Type 26 fleet, between us, Norway and hopefully others we will have one of the most effective counter-submarine fleets in the world.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
It was a privilege recently to spend a week at Camp Viking with our Royal Marines, seeing at first hand the work they are doing to defend the High North. Does the Minister agree that it is clear strategically that the security of the High North and of the north Atlantic are intrinsically linked because of the sea lanes, the data cables and the presence of the Russian northern fleet around the Kola peninsula? Alongside the carrier group, can he set out what else we will be doing as a nation to protect the Arctic and our interests and allied interests there, not only to diminish and constrain Putin’s war machine, but to protect access to the north Atlantic?
Al Carns
As my hon. Friend will know, we have the carrier group deploying up there. That will be a NATO exercise with a multitude of different assets attached, running through all sorts of mission rehearsals and deterrent operations. On top of that, we have had international engagement with our joint expeditionary force partners, and that will increase over time—and of course we have 1,500 exceptionally effective Marines deployed in the High North, protecting our NATO flank and our allies and partners.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can we be absolutely clear from this statement, which I very much commend for its candour and bluntness, that these two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters? They were carrying out hostile acts in UK waters, and I cannot believe that many people in the MOD are happy with the limp-wristed response of the rest of the Government to this episode. Has the ambassador been summoned for a public dressing down? Have we expelled any Russian diplomats in retaliation? Are we making it clear to our Russian adversaries that if they mess in our territorial waters, we will demand their immediate surrender, and that they should surface and be escorted to a British port or we will open fire, or at least fire a warning shot? Just saying, “We see you,” is not going to be enough. That is not going to bother President Putin one jot, and he will carry on doing exactly what he is doing until we are prepared to escalate this and show that we are prepared to deter what he is doing to our country.
Al Carns
I can confirm that the submarines were not within the 12 nautical miles of UK territorial waters, and the hon. Member will know that the rules of the sea have all sorts of rules and regulations around the use of force. We have been watching and observing those vessels, and calling this out and telling the world exactly what they are up to actually reduces their ability to do something and then deny it and blame it on someone else, which in itself is probably the most effective deterrence that we have done.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) talks down our Royal Navy, I think the House is today united in praising it for its work to deter Russian activity at deep sea. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that, through Atlantic Bastion and the emerging defence SMEs, defence companies should get the finance they need to be able to thrive and protect our deep-sea assets?
Al Carns
I know that my hon. Friend is exceptionally passionate about this, as am I. I fully support our Royal Navy activity in the High North, and I also expect that as we move forward with big capability procurements, SMEs will get a fair showing to ensure that we can capitalise on the entrepreneurial spirit that is driving what is a technological revolution in Ukraine. We have done thousands of contracts, and there will be thousands more, but we also have a really difficult challenge on our hands. New technology in Ukraine is driving change faster than ever before. Capabilities that were ordered previously may have to have their roles changed or adapted. Indeed, some of the capability we have now is outdated and needs to be replaced. That complexity is why the defence investment plan is taking time, but it will come, and when it does, it will be fantastic.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I hope to give the Minister a focused question. He has rightly laid out the importance of the data cables to the UK as an island, and also highlighted Russia’s continued activity over many decades. The frigates that we have in the Royal Navy are really the centrepiece of the anti-submarine war, so my short, focused question is: how many frigates could we put to sea tomorrow?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Russia is in our seas and undermining our North sea cables. It is on social media spreading myths and disinformation. It is even in our politics: we must remember that the former Reform leader in Wales is currently serving time in prison for accepting Russian bribes. Members across the House recognise the ever-present threat that Russia poses to this country, but I am not sure that the public are always quite as aware of the scale and presence of Russia as it affects our society at every level. I thank the Minister for coming to the House today and updating us on what has been going on. It is really important that we expose what Russia is up to. Can I urge him to work with colleagues across Government to ensure that we continue to expose Russia wherever it is attacking us?
Al Carns
Yes, there is a physical threat from Russian submarines, Russian surface ships, bombers and the war in Ukraine, but there is actually a more subversive threat—one that is based on the influence on the hearts and minds of our nation and on the political divide of our nation. That is why we have seen members of some parties do over 10 years in prison because of their connections to the Russian regime. In some of those areas, I and my ministerial colleagues are now working exceptionally hard to quantify what that threat looks like from a cyber and influence perspective, and then to put measures in place to neutralise it, so that democracy can thrive.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I join the hon. and gallant Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces. After the Defence Secretary gave a press conference calling out this operation, Russia said that it posed no threat to undersea infrastructure. I asked this question when the Minister responded to an urgent question back in November after lasers were fired at RAF pilots by Russia: why has the Russian ambassador not been summoned by the Foreign Office, given this clear threat to our national security?
Al Carns
We regularly make clear to our Russian counterparts what they are up to and what is happening, and ensure that the severity of their activities is explained to them. The idea that Russia poses no threat to our critical national infrastructure is fundamentally wrong. The reason for Russia’s mapping it and trying to understand it is to find a gap, develop capabilities and, at a time of its choosing, perhaps use them. We acknowledge that we are watching. We have clear indicators and warnings, and I have complete assurance in our armed forces’ ability to deter it.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that the RAF’s investment in the P-8 submarine hunting programme was made in 2015, at a time when Russian activity in the north Atlantic was much less of a threat to the UK. I welcome the £100 million announced just now, but that is less than one third of the cost of one of those aircraft, so can I ask him what assessment he has made of the P-8 submarine hunting capability in the light of the increased Russian activity? Will he assure the House that he will go further if the RAF needs him to?
Al Carns
That is a fantastic question. The Nimrod capability was taken out of service many years ago. The P-8 programme is a huge success. Many other allies and partners use those same aircraft. When we combine that with some of the best frigates and the best Navy personnel, and with our subsurface capability, that multi-domain spectrum of finding submarines and tracking them is second to none. A £100 million investment has gone into the P-8 programme. Of course we will ensure that that money is spent wisely on maintenance, and other gaps if required, and we will spend more if there are issues with the P-8 programme in the future. It is the frontline of our deterrence and indicator network.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This incident highlights the need to move at pace to scale up our hybrid naval capabilities, so will the Minister commit to do so, drawing on the strengths of north-east industry?
Al Carns
A country without a navy has destroyed, or rendered irrelevant, one of the biggest fleets in the world, the Black sea fleet. The lessons that we can learn from the hybrid activity in Ukraine are some of the most important ones for our island nation, and we will ensure that they are inculcated and integrated into our major capability platforms to ensure that we have a high-low mix of hardware and sophisticated software combined into fantastic high-end systems such as the Type 26 frigate.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
First, I pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of our armed forces, and in particular to the many members of our armed forces involved in this operation who are based at RAF Lossiemouth in the Poseidon fleet, and those in the Typhoons who provide quick reaction alert from Lossiemouth. They are on the frontline in our defensive operations and in protecting the integrity of our defence against Russia.
The point that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made about the threat of Russian vessels in the north Atlantic growing is really important. There is an advantage to basing more vessels in the north of these isles, and there are plenty of ports around Scotland that could accommodate that. Will the Minister give that serious consideration?
Al Carns
We have a multitude of indicators and warnings that highlight when threats come into our areas of interest. When they do, we make sure that we mobilise capability to meet and deter that threat. I think all parties realise the absolute centrality of Scotland within our defensive network, through its geographical position and the access and insight it gives us to the High North, which is critical to our defence.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Building on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), I commend my hon. and gallant Friend on his statement and encourage him to do all he can to continue to raise awareness of the subversive actions of Russia, whether in the grey zone or through hybrid activities. Does he agree that the recent success of our armed forces in the north Atlantic rebuffs the Leader of the Opposition’s recent remarks—which she has still failed to apologise for—about our armed forces simply “hanging around”? What we have seen is that, whether at sea, in the air or on land, our armed forces work day in, day out to keep our homeland safe, and we should be proud of all they do.
Al Carns
We have seen billions of pounds-worth of cyber-attacks in the UK and a 30% increase in Russian surface and subsurface capability in the High North. We have seen tactics and training cross-pollinated between Russia and Ukraine, and now Iran, across 10 different countries, with low and slow-flying drones and high-end ballistic missiles mixed into a very effective strike programme. On the other side, we have also seen the capabilities from Ukraine deploying into the middle east to defend against those very same tactics. It is clear for everyone to see that there are countries working together to undermine the west, not just in the physical domain, but in the cyber and influence domains. The quicker we push back against that, the better.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is clear that under the current leadership, the US is no longer a reliable ally, threatening European colleagues and Commonwealth nations and undermining the very purpose of NATO. As we face increasing threats from Russia, we are reliant on the US for our nuclear deterrent, for our kit and for technology. Will the Minister share his plans to increase the prioritisation of British and European partners’ equipment, so that we can have some independence from the US and also boost our domestic market?
Al Carns
We have a multitude of allies and partners. The US has been a partner for the last 20 years and will continue to be so for some time to come. We share a plethora of different capabilities and have done so for the last 20 years. We also do the same with our European allies. As the hon. Member will know, the Lunna House agreement with Norway has resulted in a frigate deal. Our Trinity House deal with the Germans and, of course, our capability and co-operation with Poland have resulted in millions of pounds of investment, but also thousands of skilled jobs, from Scotland and Cornwall to Ireland and Wales.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement. I pay tribute to our incredibly brave naval personnel for the important work they do, often in difficult weather conditions, to keep us all safe. It strikes me that Harlow is quite a way from the Arctic circle and that the Arctic circle is considerably colder than Harlow, particularly at this time of year. Would he touch on the unique challenges that our naval fleet face in those conditions? Although it is hugely important that we support NATO with its Arctic Sentry mission, would he reflect on the challenges and reassure me and my constituents that our naval fleet are prepared for those challenges?
Al Carns
I am in no doubt, and am absolutely clear, that we have one of the best navies in the world. I have served in the Royal Navy for 24 years as a member of His Majesty’s Royal Marines. Operating in the High North is exceptionally difficult. I have only done a little bit of it in my time on the carrier strike group as the chief of staff, but when you are in Sea State 9 on a pointy frigate, yes, you need to have some mettle to continue doing your job, when it is day in, day out for weeks on end. What I can say is that the Royal Navy perseveres; it does a fantastic job. When that is combined with our P-8s in the sky and, of course, the silent service underneath the waves, I have no doubt that our nation is very well protected.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister may recall that back in November when we discussed the Yantar, I asked him about the circumstances under which the fleet contingency group would be given the green light to conduct a maritime interdiction operation. He responded that it would need to meet international law. I was pleased on 25 March when the Prime Minister put out a statement saying that the Royal Marines special forces would be given the opportunity to interdict Russian shadow fleet vessels, but subsequently, we have not seen any of that take place. The Minister mentioned that criteria would need to be met. There are 544 sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels. Can he confirm whether all of them—by virtue of being sanctioned—meet the criteria for being interdicted, or are there vessels in that list of 544 that are in scope, but have not yet transited through our waters?
Al Carns
As is absolutely clear, the maritime interdiction of a Russian-flagged vessel such as the Yantar is very different from one where the vessel either does not have a flag or changes its flag regularly. The criteria must be met to enable those boardings. The MOD is absolutely ready to go, but unfortunately I will not go through the detail here, because it may allow some of those vessels to put in place the mitigations that would reduce our ability to board them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
With the Russian navy now escorting shadow fleet vessels down through the English channel, could a mitigation or a blocker for interdicting one of those vessels be a naval vessel with them? Was it an error of judgment by the Government to put them on notice that we were about to start those interdictions?
Al Carns
We had already supported a US boarding of a sanctioned vessel and, of course, multiple other allies as well. Russian naval escorts do escort some of these vessels. When they do, that is also putting a considerable strain on the Russian fleet, which is relatively limited when combined with its subsurface capability, and this is having an effect. What I can say is that the MOD is absolutely ready to board any ship that meets the parameters, and will do so if that happens.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and echo the point made by the Minister in respect of our brave personnel. I agree with him that we have the best Navy in the world—I just wish it were larger. I am unclear from what the Minister has said about whether we have had more than a narrative of what has happened over the last month and of our capabilities in respect of these events. What has actually changed in the Government’s planning with respect to defending our undersea infrastructure from Russia, in terms of either the disposition of our forces or procurement, perhaps? Also, he mentions the resilience of our undersea infrastructure. Can he tell the House a little about what plans we have to cope with an attack on undersea cables and how quickly we could recover from one?
Al Carns
It is a delight to see a Member from the hon. Member’s party sat in the Chamber during a statement on a defence subject—it is a first. I remind him of the capability that we have seen as this Russian operation takes place. The UK has deployed assets to map and track it, and then expose it. That, in fact, is one of the best deterrents, because no longer can Russia or indeed Putin claim that an operation or sabotage that took place was not them. That was the whole purpose of that operation, which has been fantastically conducted by the best Royal Navy in the world. Remember, it is not just the ship or the aircraft; a whole plethora of individuals—in fact, 500 people—sat behind this operation, conducting it, and it was successfully prosecuted.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I would like to return to the issue of UK maritime services facilitating the export of Russian energy, which I raised in this Chamber three months ago. Does the Minister not see the irony that, at a time when we are all grappling with how we fund our own defence, the Government are still letting UK plc bankroll Putin’s war machine—a war machine that is mapping our infrastructure? What action do the Government plan to take to stop it?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
A recent Policy Exchange document entitled, “Closing the Back Door” highlighted that, as a result of the Irish Government freeloading on the UK and NATO, they were increasingly reliant on the UK for security, particularly regarding air defence and maritime security, resulting in an inability to protect their own airspace and territorial waters, including crucial transatlantic cables. That has created a back-door vulnerability for the UK and NATO. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government to up their game and provide for some security measures? Does he have any concerns that a future Irish Government that included Sinn Féin could lead to any co-operation breaking down?
Al Carns
We need to accept that Ireland in itself is exceptionally close to the mainland and we therefore have shared security interests. The Prime Minister has had constructive conversations with his Irish counterparts to ensure that, where applicable, we share those resources and protect both Ireland and, of course, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister talked about Government investment to deter adversaries in the north Atlantic, the Atlantic Bastion programme, extra money for P-8 aircraft and the additional service vessels on order, but unless I missed it, he did not say anything about plans for the AUKUS submarines that are in development with the United States. Will he comment on the future of the AUKUS programme?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Given Northern Ireland’s geographical position, it occupies a geo-security location of increasing significance, particularly with regard to transatlantic undersea cables. I am disappointed, then, that there are still only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland. Last month, there was a memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on providing sea and naval cover for the entire British Isles. That is particularly important to the Republic, given that its cyber-economy relies on those cables. It has been reported in the press that that cover is being provided free of charge to the Republic of Ireland. Is that correct? Surely not.
Al Carns
Northern Ireland’s essential role in our transatlantic relationship, and in the security of our great isle, is not lost on me—nor indeed is the essential role that Northern Ireland played in world war two. If I can—if it is within the operational parameter—I will write back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the details on the numbers in Northern Ireland. Any discussions taking place with another country, in the diplomatic space, usually involve bilateral benefits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his statement—no one inside or outside this House doubts his commitment. The Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy made a statement to the House about six weeks ago. I asked him then about the very issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just mentioned. As the Minister is aware, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force protect not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland. Pipelines and undersea cables go from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland and then into the Atlantic ocean. Can the Minister confirm that Russian submarines have not been active in the soft underbelly of the Republic of Ireland, which is a back door to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Al Carns
I will not go into specific detail on the geographical movement of submarines, but I can say that there are interdependencies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland and a multitude of other European nations in relation to undersea cables. We are working with our allies and partners, and will continue to do so, to ensure that those cables are absolutely protected and that, if any threat appears, it is mapped, tracked and deterred.
Point of Order
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about some missing written parliamentary answers that I am trying to track down. The Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), is here, so she might be able to help. I have been waiting over four months for a reply to written parliamentary questions 96357, 96475 and 96477 on special educational needs and disabilities reform, as well as to a freedom of education request, which is now several weeks overdue. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, encourage the Department for Education to reply to its correspondence in a timely fashion?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Freedom of information requests are not a matter for the Chair, but it is important that Members receive timely answers to their parliamentary questions. His point will no doubt be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House, who will be able to pursue the matter.
Backbench Business
SEND Provision and Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Every debate on special educational needs and disabilities is dominated by statistics: funding, school places and workforce numbers. Those are important, but at the heart of this issue are children, families and carers who rely on the system. I thank the hundreds of families, from my constituency and across the country, who have contacted me since the debate was scheduled. I applied for the debate before the White Paper came out, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I focus pretty much all my comments on the White Paper. I am sure that other Members will speak about the issue more widely.
In my opinion, any credible reform of SEND, including the Government’s White Paper, must meet three tests. It must strengthen legal protections, improve delivery on the ground and address the underlying pressures in the system. If it does all three, it can and will save money in the long run, but I am afraid that the Government’s proposals fall short on all three. Before turning to the substance of the proposals, I will address the process by which they have been brought forward.
The consultation itself has raised serious concerns. Parents and representative organisations have expressed overwhelming opposition to key elements of the reforms, particularly the potential weakening of legal protections. National charities have warned that the proposals risk eroding rights, while others have asked whether the most consequential changes have been fully and transparently put to consultation at all. At the same time, many parents and forums report feeling that engagement has been superficial—that workshops and consultation exercises have not meaningfully reflected their views. That matters because reform of this scale depends on trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline these issues—that is why the Chamber is quite full. I am 71 years old. I remember that, when I was a child, there were not many children with autism or learning difficulties, but today the numbers are exceptional. Does he agree that it is time to find out why so many more children have special needs requirements now than when I was a boy in the ’60s and ’70s?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we are to solve—if that is the right word—the issue of special educational needs, and, more importantly, put in place the systems to support children with such needs, we need to understand the reasons for those needs.
Instead, there is a feeling that families who are already exhausted by the system are becoming disengaged from the very process that the Government’s proposals are supposed to improve. Across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, SEND is the most prominent issue in my casework. Parents, schools and carers feel consistently let down by a system that is too slow, too complex and too often unresponsive. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I see those challenges not just locally but reflected across the country.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making persuasive arguments. As in many constituencies, support for SEND is an ever increasing problem in my own. This is about not just support but the quality of support. Parents have to lose their jobs because the transport to take SEND children to and from school is being cut. Does he agree that the consultation should focus on need rather than on the financial aspect?
Gregory Stafford
I do not attribute any unfair or untoward motive to the Government; I think they are trying to improve the system. However, as I said in my opening remarks, my view is that if we improve it properly and get it right, that will save money. The danger with the way the Government have approached this is that they are looking to save money and then thinking about how they can solve the system. That is the danger.
Let me move on to the three tests that I mentioned at the start. The first test is whether the Government’s proposals strengthen legal protections. I accept that education, health and care plans, introduced in 2014, are not perfect, but they provide something essential: clarity, structure and, crucially, legal enforceability. The central question is whether individual support plans will carry those same enforceable rights. At present, the Government have not provided that assurance, and I look to the Minister to do so. In fact, external assessments suggest that these changes will significantly weaken legal protections. That creates a clear risk: replacing a system that is legally enforceable, albeit slow, with one that may be simpler in theory but weaker in law. And we know that enforceability matters.
Gregory Stafford
In a minute.
Across the country, over nine in 10 tribunal appeals are upheld against the local authority. And while, to be frank, that covers no local authority in any glory, it is evidence that the legal framework works when families are able to challenge decisions. If we remove that safeguard, families will lose their ultimate protection.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this really important debate to the Chamber. I recognise his passion for supporting young people with SEND, but I disagree with his views on the Government’s White Paper. I say that not because I am sitting on this side of the Chamber, but as a former teacher who worked with a system that did work and that was very similar to the system that is being put forward. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s point about legal enforcement and EHCPs, because even when children did get EHCPs, the schools just were not able to provide what the EHCP demanded. Whether it was a legal requirement or not, those schools were just not able to provide it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that.
Gregory Stafford
Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights.
When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote:
“We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”
Gregory Stafford
No, I will not.
That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression.
The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended.
Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly:
“CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.”
That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility.
The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote:
“We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.”
That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned.
There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for giving way. Is he not making two contradictory points, however? He says on the one hand that it should be legally enforceable—a point with which I entirely agree, particularly as nearly 99% of tribunal appeals are partially or wholly upheld. But he also recognises that EHCPs are not coming through at the level they should within the 20 weeks—certainly, it is about the 10% level—so having the legal backing and framework is not delivering the outcome.
Gregory Stafford
I do not think those two points are contradictory. One is an issue of the legislation, which is what I am talking about and what the Government are potentially looking to change, and another is how the system itself is being implemented by local authorities and others. I have been very clear in my speech that although I absolutely believe—as I think the hon. Gentleman does—that the legal requirements should remain, I am in no way sugar-coating the difficulties that local authorities are having in meeting those legal requirements.
The third test is whether the reforms address the underlying pressures in the system. Demand is rising rapidly: over 1.7 million children in England are now identified as having special educational needs, with numbers increasing year on year. Yet the Government’s proposals place additional expectations on schools and local authorities without resolving the fundamental constraints: namely, workforce funding, certainty and system capacity.
The White Paper promises more educational psychologists, therapists and specialists, but training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years. So the question is simple: how are those gaps going to be filled in the meantime? At the same time, the Department’s own figures show that there are now 400 fewer teachers than when we left office. So schools are being asked to do more with less.
Local authorities are at the sharp end of the system and are being placed in an increasingly impossible position. Colleagues will know that in Surrey around £100 million has been invested locally to expand SEND provision alongside further investment in staffing, yet demand continues to outstrip capacity. In Hampshire, SEND overspend now stands at around £140 million, placing extraordinary pressure on finances. This is not unique to my areas in Surrey or Hampshire; across the country, councils are being asked to meet rising demand, fulfil statutory obligations and absorb increasing costs without that long-term funding certainty. The result is a system where families face delays, councils face financial instability and schools face mounting pressure.
Taken together, this is not simply a failure of local authorities; it is a failure of the system to meet demand. And into that system the Government propose a decade-long transition. Councils are already preparing for a surge in EHCP applications as families seek to secure existing protections before reforms take effect, and that is certainly not going to ease pressure—it is, in fact, going to intensify it.
Through my work on the Health and Social Care Committee, I consistently see that SEND cannot be addressed in isolation. The number of children with SEND is rising by about 5% each year, and meeting that need requires genuine co-ordination between education and health. Yet SEND was almost entirely absent from the NHS 10-year plan, and when I submitted written questions on conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, the responses revealed that data is not collected individually but is grouped into very broad categories, which is not joined-up government but fragmentation. That needs to change.
I want to touch briefly on the independent sector capacity, because independent schools also play an important role in relieving pressure on the system, particularly for children with complex needs. They act as a pressure valve. I am aware that some characterise all independent provision as little more than private equity extracting profit, but the independent sector in my constituency provides excellent and comprehensive coverage and capacity. I am fortunate to have excellent specialist provision in my constituency, including at schools such as Hollywater, Undershaw, More House, Pathways, the Abbey school and the Ridgeway school, which support children with complex needs every day and should be supported.
In conclusion, families do not need another wholesale structural overhaul or a decade of transition. Instead, they need a system that delivers on time, with clarity and with enforceable rights. I have a few questions for the Minister. First, will she set out the full cost of replacing EHCPs with individual support plans, including the transition and implementation? Secondly, will she guarantee that ISPs will carry the same legally enforceable rights, including access to a tribunal? Thirdly, when will additional SEND staff be trained and in post? Fourthly, what action will be taken against local authorities that consistently fail to meet statutory timelines? Finally, will the Government publish detailed data on specific conditions and system performance so that outcomes can be properly measured?
I say to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that this is not about defending a White Paper; it is about defending the families we represent. Families are not asking for perfection; they are simply asking for a system that works. The question for the Government is simple: will they strengthen what exists or will they replace it with something weaker, slower and less certain? On the current trajectory, that is the risk, and it is one that I believe this House should not accept.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for it.
The support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is an area in which my Committee has taken an intense interest. It is the single biggest challenge in our education system, with far-reaching consequences. The current system is failing children, families and the professionals who work with them, right across our country. It is causing deep distress, sometimes even trauma, for children and their families. The implications of the failing system for local authority finances are profound, and many professionals are put in the invidious position of being unable to deliver the education and support that children and young people require because of impossible constraints on resources and ever-increasing need.
The outcomes for children with SEND are unacceptably poor. I am afraid that I simply do not recognise the description given by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that this is a system that is broadly working. A system that relies on parents having to battle every step of the way and having to go to tribunals to seek redress is an exclusionary and inequitable system. We need to be absolutely clear that it is failing and that the reform that is necessary to get it to work is comprehensive and far-reaching.
It is vital that the failures in the current system are addressed. It is vital on its own terms, because no child should feel that there is no place for them in our education system, that their needs are not understood or, even worse, as we have heard from some of our witnesses, that they are the problem. No parent should have to battle at every single stage of their child’s education to get the support they need. It is also vital if we want to improve outcomes in our education system, and if we want to unleash the talent and creativity of every single young person, for the benefit of our society and our economy.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear from parents who have real concerns about exclusions, which have been mentioned already. Parents want to understand how accountability will work in a future system, particularly in relation to concerns that their children might experience trauma as a result of exclusion. I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend’s thoughts on that?
Helen Hayes
Accountability is one of the areas that our Committee highlighted in our report last year, which I will speak about in a moment.
Last year we published our inquiry report “Solving the SEND crisis”. The report was based on 900 pieces of written evidence, seven oral evidence sessions, and visits to Ontario in Canada and to schools and colleges implementing innovative good practice in England. In 95 detailed recommendations, our report called for comprehensive change to the SEND system, with a focus on early identification of need, making mainstream schools inclusive for the children with SEND who are already in them, increasing the accountability of the SEND system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) rightly suggests, for schools, local authorities and, importantly, for the NHS, and involving parents and carers in every decision about the support that their children receive.
To date, we have received from the Government only an interim response to our recommendations, so we look forward to receiving their full response in due course. However, we are encouraged that the Government’s SEND reform proposals reflect several of my Committee’s recommendations. It is very welcome that the Government have committed additional resources to SEND support and will effectively be running two parallel systems for a number of years to avoid sharp cliff edges between the old system and the new one. That is the right way to deliver significant reform. I know that the decision to write off 90% of local authority SEND debts also comes as a huge relief.
It is the right approach to prioritise early identification of need, to be seeking to make mainstream schools fully inclusive for the children who are already in them, and to be expanding the availability of provision in the state sector for children who need a place at a specialist school.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
One of my constituents, Olivia, is battling for her son to stay in mainstream education, alongside her son’s twin, who is an anchor for him. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must ensure that ISPs are there quickly to avoid some of the distress of the process as parents battle to keep their children in mainstream settings?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend speaks very well on behalf of his constituent, whose situation is replicated across the country, which gives urgency to the need to reform our SEND system.
It is the right approach to be increasing the expertise of teaching staff and to be making specialist expertise available to schools whenever they need it. The long waiting times for diagnosis and specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, are one of the most appalling aspects of the current system. Childhood is so short and children should not be seeing years of their education pass them by without the support they need to get the most out of it.
My Committee is undertaking our own scrutiny of the Government’s proposals tomorrow, when we will hear directly in an oral evidence session from witnesses with a wide range of perspectives and expertise. We will write formally to the Government in due course with our reflections following the evidence session.
As I have spoken with parents and the organisations that represent them, I have heard about anxieties with some of the Government’s proposals that I hope the Minister will address today. The proposals involve, over time, a scaling back of EHC assessments and EHCPs, replacing some EHCPs with individual support plans. Parents and carers who I have spoken to are understandably concerned about replacing a statutory plan with an ISP that will not be on a statutory footing. The concern is about how accountability will be guaranteed if there are problems with the ISP, if their child’s needs are not correctly identified, if the ISP that is drafted is not fit for purpose or if it is not being implemented properly.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Helen Hayes
I am afraid I will not because of the lack of time.
Parents and carers of children with SEND have often been let down so much and by so many different parts of the system that they simply do not trust that anything will work as it should. Their children have rights on paper that are often not upheld in practice. In such a context, accountability matters.
Rebuilding the broken trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system will be critical to the success of the Government’s reforms. It is why my Committee recommended no changes to current rights and entitlements, so that a new system can be built while parents still have the same access to redress to fall back on. I hope that the Minister will speak to the ways in which her reforms are designed to ensure that trust and confidence are rebuilt, and especially that parents and carers know exactly what will happen if things go wrong.
There are also concerns about the proposed reassessment of EHCPs in year 6. The transition from primary to secondary is one of the most high-risk times in a child’s education. We hear time and again from parents who say that starting at secondary school was when their child’s education started to unravel, or that if only they had been able to transport what they had in primary school into secondary school, things might have gone better.
I am grateful to the Minister for the considered and thoughtful approach that she has taken to SEND reform, and for the extensive listening she has undertaken with parents, carers and professionals. The current consultation on draft proposals is an important part of the process and I hope that if it is necessary to make adjustments to the proposals in the light of feedback from the consultation, the Government will be willing to do so. It is so important that these reforms are absolutely right.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHCPs, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support that their children need. Like so many other Members of the House, SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve: an education that works for them and their specific needs. What troubles me even more is not those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward.
One of the most troubling aspects of this SEND crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children are left in settings that cannot meet their needs or, in some cases, are left out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements; it begins much earlier in the system. Buckinghamshire council has advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and there are delays of up to 56 weeks just to issue an EHCP. That is over a year in which a child may be stuck in the wrong setting, a year of lost progress and a year of growing pressure on families.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as the harm caused to the children who do not receive timely support for their special needs, if children are in the wrong setting, harm is caused to the teachers, who are not qualified to support those children in their normal, mainstream setting? If we can do the assessments and get the right support quicker, it will help not only the children, but the educationalists providing their education.
Greg Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes, such as the teaching staff who do their absolute best and every other child in those classes. He makes a very fair point. Before we even get to the question of school places, the system is already falling behind.
In Buckinghamshire, nearby SEND schools are already oversubscribed, and despite the best efforts of heroic teaching staff, mainstream schools cannot always meet complex needs. This is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this Government. Back in May 2024, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire council and committed to a brand-new, 152-place SEND school for Buckinghamshire. That was not a political pledge or a general election campaign promise; it was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour Government have formally scrapped it.
What was a £20 million spend has been downgraded to £8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire. That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all our problems, but it would have gone a very long way. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents. Children and families in Buckinghamshire would benefit so much from it.
Let me turn to the Government’s proposed SEND reforms. Many parents have contacted me on this issue, and I am concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has outlined, that the Government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me:
“I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely. I’m really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child.”
That is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy.
My constituent continued:
“My two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one-size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings. I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly, the solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose.”
I was lucky enough to go to an event in Portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and teachers was quite frightening; many fear that under this White Paper, if it is brought in, their children will be excluded altogether. I urge the Minister to get a read-out from that meeting.
That leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and legally enforceable support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon put it in his own excellent speech. That is about not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights and the potential loss of “education other than at school” packages for children who cannot attend any school setting. That cannot be right.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
When I spoke in the Select Committee debate on this matter in the Chamber, I highlighted that too many parents feel that the system is done to them, rather than working with them. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of parents in my constituency that in order for trust to be rebuilt, there has to be some sort of individually, legally enforceable backstop for those families?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. It is the interests of those families that motivated me to speak in this debate, and I entirely endorse the point that he makes.
In the last few moments that I have, I will briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on in her summing-up speech. The case was brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020. Both children experienced significant early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour. Delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences.
As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long-term social and economic value—I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state-funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care. That unintended consequence is deeply concerning. More broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility is frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention that the children need, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
Too many families are being let down. “One size fits all” does not work and never will. Let us focus on the child and the needs of each child, and build a system that genuinely works.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this really important debate.
Children in West Lancashire have previously felt let down by the SEND system. People lost faith in the very system that is meant to support the children in our communities who need it the most. That is the inheritance that this Government took from the last Government. I know how important getting this right is to the Secretary of State, and the work that this Government have done in the past few years has not gone unnoticed by my constituents, but it is so important that we get these changes right. The people who write to my inbox or visit my surgeries are simply desperate for a system that treats SEND pupils with dignity and truly recognises them as individuals filled with all sorts of potential.
There is much good in the Government’s plans. The vast increase in specialist places and the training and upskilling that will give our teachers more tools to help SEND students will make a real difference to the lives of children and their families.
SEND parents are no different from any other parents. Every day, they fight to give their children the best possible start in life, and it is so important that this Government support them to do so, without them having to fight endless layers of bureaucracy and constantly push back against a “computer says no” culture that requires individuals to fit cookie-cutter templates to get bespoke assistance. We must ensure that, through these changes, we are giving parents respite, not just inadvertently moving the fight from one place to another.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and congratulate her on having been a great Health Minister—I was sorry that she stood aside. She will be aware that there is a party whose Members are not present this evening. A lot of people in the media are suggesting that they will form the next Government, but their policy in this area is that this is a crisis of overdiagnosis. Does she share my concern that this debate is not being properly engaged in by the people who want to damage the system most?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I agree that we cannot simply say that there is overdiagnosis. It has been said previously that there were not as many people with SEND before; the reality is that we do not know that, because for many years, SEND simply went unnoticed. People were not diagnosed, and were simply written off as naughty or backward. We must recognise how important these children are and how much support they need.
Dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come to the Chamber today to protect the rights they have under current legislation to enforceable provision based on a child’s particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist in the current EHCP system, but we must make sure that we listen to SEND parents. I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for SEND children and their families, not harder.
Twice, I have met a constituent who has a son with severe and complex special needs—he is nonverbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept that place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. It ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent’s son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight for the most basic right—for her son to have an education—and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school. Had that not been the case, her son might still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the Government that the system we inherited is not working, and she is not asking us to scrap these reforms, but we must ensure that the changes we are making to an unfair system support SEND children and their families as much as we possibly can.
Last year, Reform took control of Lancashire county council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency. It is obvious that, despite claiming that it would tackle the issue, Reform has demonstrated no interest in it. Its national party does not care—as has already been pointed out, not a single one of its Members is present for this evening’s debate. Reform-led Lancashire county council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, and has failed to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for their children to have the same opportunities that the rest of us rightly expect as standard. It would be an abdication of my duty to represent my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the right of their children to a decent education, in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze away and plugs its ears.
I am proud that this Government are tackling this issue in a constructive way—parents have waited for these changes for far too long. As part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to give every child the best possible start in life, I would be grateful if the Minister gave a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHCP or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will not be weakened by reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes, and it is highly unlikely that most people will get in. I call Andrew George.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, I made a number of interventions in place of my speech. I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because she was making a very strong case about the need to ensure that these reforms are forced through. The three tests that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) introduced to this debate set the template, on which I hope the Minister will respond in due course.
In my constituency and across Cornwall—it is good to see Members from Cornwall in the Chamber this evening—the issues that are causing the greatest concern relate to the large number of tribunals that take place in order for parents to ensure that their children get the decent education they desperately deserve.
Ms Creasy
Let me tell the hon. Member that in London people have the same concern that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) set out. We have to change the system, but too often, parents have had to go to tribunal to be heard. Any reform must support parents to continue to be heard as part of the educational system supporting these children. Does the hon. Member agree?
Andrew George
I absolutely agree. What worries us most is the fact that parents have to be sharp-elbowed enough to take on the tribunal system, which is no mean feat. What worries me is how many other parents do not have the confidence to challenge decisions, to use the tribunal system, to make a complaint to the ombudsman or to use local authority facilities to pursue those issues. There are major issues that need to be reflected upon. It certainly should not just be those parents with the self-confidence to navigate their way through the system whose children benefit, while so many others fall by the wayside. That causes me a great deal of concern.
Another issue that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon identified in his opening remarks is the very low number of authorities meeting the 20-week EHCP target. That results in many pupils simply not getting on and getting the services in the education system that they desperately need.
Given that I have already made a couple of interventions, I will conclude my remarks and let others come in.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on bringing forward this debate. This Government have set forward an ambitious plan to reform the SEND system in the SEND White Paper. I am proud of the commitment that the Government have made to ensuring that children with SEND are supported to thrive and achieve by bringing about the changes that parents and educators deserve and need.
Ask any parent about their experience of navigating the current SEND system and they will tell stories of being pushed from pillar to post and not being listened to. The trust and confidence of parents and carers in the SEND system that we inherited from the previous Government has been completely undermined. Last Friday, in my constituency of Broxtowe, I met parents and educators who spoke of their own heartbreaking experiences. They told me of their families being traumatised and their children often being excluded from education altogether. They welcome the White Paper and express their support for all that it seeks to do, but they have concerns about accountability and the legal status of parents who seek to get support for their families. They support the Government in wanting early interventions and support provided closer to home. They are particularly happy that there will be additional occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, and upskilling for staff in every school.
Parents and educators seek further detail about how we can reform the current teacher training curriculum so that newly qualified teachers and educators are trained with the skills and expertise they need in every classroom, including for dyslexic pupils and the neurodiverse. As we know, dyslexia is one of the most common forms of learning difficulty and learning difference, yet under the current system, support is inconsistent or non-existent, or simply depends on an overstretched classroom teacher who may not have received specialist training. It is my hope that the White Paper will be a vehicle for developing a national dyslexia strategy, and I am confident that the Government will take that into consideration alongside all their other excellent work to improve the education outcomes and life chances of those with SEND.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister is probably sick of hearing me bang on about the local picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that ours is the lowest-funded local authority for SEND. We have roughly £1,000 per pupil per year, while Camden is at the other end of the league table: the funding in the Prime Minister’s constituency amounts to £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy, that inequality, is simply insane. It is an historic problem caused by a funding formula that does not work for larger rural authorities, and it is an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for many years.
This is one of those “almost too difficult to do” problems that Ministers, both on our side and on the Labour side, have perhaps shied away from. I ask the Minister tonight to grasp this unique opportunity, given that the Government are now consulting. I am pleased that I shall be meeting her next week, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and I hope that we can find a way forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for giving us a chance to debate these issues again today. In the limited time available to me, I will draw attention to a few of the specific problems that the system is throwing up. One problem involves EHCP drafting—if, of course, it is possible to obtain an EHCP in a timely manner in the first place. We often see only a vague recognition of need, which means that delivery on that need and the action plan is unenforceable from a legal perspective. The routine breaches of timelines are outrageous: people are waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky, in that my son’s nursery recognised his developmental issues when he was two and was very supportive during the process on which we then embarked, but I then became aware of how adversarial that process can become when one begins to engage in the issue of local authority provision.
I found out at 3.30 pm on a Friday, via an email, that my son would not be able to take up the school placement that was, perhaps, most suitable for him at that point. The email did say that I could appeal against the decision, but it gave no reasons for why it had been made, and of course at 3.30 pm on a Friday everyone had finished work for the weekend, so replying was not an option. We can address, and should be addressing, such simple problems in the system to ensure that the journey for parents is easier and less challenging, because the more we can get the children into the right settings, the better it will be for them. Fewer will lose time in education and it will be possible to avoid the long-term problems that lead to further issues in adulthood, so that we do not find a child heading into a journey of never-ending care.
Gregory Stafford
I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think the idea that anyone on this side is wholly endorsing the current system is a false one. My fear, however—which I think my hon. Friend is expressing—is that, under the current proposals in the White Paper, if he unfortunately has to proceed through the tribunal system, the tribunal will be no longer be able to allocate a specific provision for parents and child, which essentially renders the whole thing null and void. Does he agree that we should be asking the Government not to rip up their proposals, but to listen to the concerns that parents are expressing about their changes and tweak them, so that they can be responsive to the problems that he is raising?
Charlie Dewhirst
One of the problems for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain, and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not carried out in a timely fashion, which means that a child gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, which exacerbates the problem for the future. We end up with much bigger, more costly issues—not just costly in terms of local authority or central Government spending, but costly for parents and children. As a parent, I think that one of the biggest challenges is not knowing where that journey is going to end—not knowing what my son’s outlook is likely to be in two years, five years or 10 years. If we felt confident that the system would be there to provide support and the necessary safeguard in respect of that schooling provision—perhaps provision into adulthood, if required—perhaps we could start to break down some of the barriers.
I appreciate that much of this comes with costs, and that local authorities need more provision in certain areas. I plead with the Government once again to ensure that the inequality in the funding gap is addressed, but I hope we now have an opportunity to find a better way forward for SEND provision.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I speak as one who, like many of my colleagues, has received many emails and other messages, and engaged in many conversations with parents of disabled children. I know that throughout the country parents are fighting battles to secure for their children the basic support that the law says they should already have. This is a profoundly damaged system that the Government are determined to change, and I welcome that hugely.
In my view, the schools White Paper represents the most important attempt to improve life for disabled children and young people, and for their families, since the introduction of EHCPs in 2014 and, before that, the last Labour Government’s Aiming High for Disabled Children programme in 2007. I should perhaps declare an interest here: I campaigned with Contact a Family, Mencap and the Council for Disabled Children to build the political case for disabled children in the mid-2000s that led to Aiming High and secured nearly a billion pounds in new funding, plus new rights for disabled children and young people, and for their families.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £4.8 million of extra investment that this Government have put in to support SEND adaptations in Bolton, but also acknowledge the recognition that came from parents at my SEND roundtable last week that this cannot just be about extra investment in the system? Reform is now long overdue.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am glad his local area has received that investment. Indeed, the two boroughs in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham will get a 10% increase in SEND funding for next year to support new, dedicated SEND spaces in every secondary school. That sort of thing is happening across the country, and it is absolutely right that it should.
These are real commitments, seriously made: nearly £4 billion for school improvements, new therapists and specialists, and better teacher training; the new individual support plans for every child with SEND; and the EHCP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the most complex needs. All are seriously made commitments, and I welcome them, but I have to say that questions none the less remain—some of them have been raised today. I have just three questions for the Minister, and the first relates to enforceability. If a school fails to deliver what is written in a child’s individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to resolution.
Peter Swallow
I recently hosted an open meeting with parents on these reforms. Although there was widespread welcoming of much of what is in the White Paper, they urged that real, sustained change should happen. One concern was about the enforceability and accountability for ISPs, what would happen if a school was not delivering what was needed to support a child, and where that accountability would fall.
Ben Coleman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been talk about a beefed-up school complaints process. I do not think that will be sufficient, and I ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care ombudsman to provide a binding route—a statutory backstop—to resolution when schools and other settings fall short.
My second question is about health and social care co-ordination. This is where the White Paper is perhaps most silent, and where the current system is most visibly broken. As has been mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, recently examined how the health aspects of EHCPs are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that integrated care boards and local authorities simply do not jointly commission children’s therapy services. Back in 2014, a truly joined-up education, health and care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards, but Health never fully showed up and the then Government allowed it to get away with that for years. We now have to tackle that, and witnesses to our Committee urged that the Government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision-making boards. Is the Minister prepared to give that serious consideration?
Finally, children with SEND spend most of their lives outside the classroom, cared for by parents, who receive remarkably little support. Will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need?
The White Paper shows that the Government understand that the system is broken and are prepared to invest. Success is going to depend on many things, including whether Health finally shows up, whether ISPs are properly enforced and whether families get the support that they need. I have every confidence that this Government are going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children and young people, and their families.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for calling this important debate. Like him, my inbox has overflowed since I was elected last year, with concerned parents writing to me about the state of special educational needs provision. They recognise that the system is broken, but also that the system that they experience in Surrey is perhaps more broken that almost anywhere else.
I will start with one bit of good news and an acknowledgment: I thank the Department for confirming funding for the new Frimley Oak academy, which will open in my constituency in the near future and will cater to 170 people. It represents an important step forward in addressing a vital local need for children with special educational needs.
The sad reality is that for too long, so many parents and children in my constituency have been failed, I am sorry to say, by Surrey county council. Surrey has had the highest recorded number of SEND tribunal appeals anywhere in the country for three consecutive years. That statistic is a symptom of systemic dysfunction and failure.
Behind every one of those appeals are human stories. A constituent of mine recently wrote to me. Her opening words were simply:
“Our life is crumbling right now.”
Others described their children being stripped of their childhood, families being physically and mentally broken, and their finances being pushed to the brink. At a constituency surgery that I held recently, a parent described the process of navigating the SEND system as being like walking the yellow brick road, with every trial and tribulation thrown in their way, and then finally getting to the emerald city that might represent something a little better, only to pull back the curtain and find that there is nothing there—an EHCP with the wrong name, describing the wrong child, offering an inappropriate package of support.
Sitting at the top of all this in Surrey are the senior leaders, who say that there is no problem with special educational needs in Surrey at all, just parents who are too articulate. They claim, outrageously, that there is not a problem; there are just parents who have too inflated an idea of their children’s wants. It is absolutely atrocious.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My hon. Friend and I, along with colleagues in Surrey, have campaigned hard to change Surrey county council’s appalling approach to children with special educational needs. Does he agree that local government reorganisation is a huge opportunity for us to change the culture? Will he urge the Minister to ensure that all newly established local authorities put children first?
Dr Pinkerton
I agree that with local government reorganisation there is an opportunity to get the processes right, but I recognise that there are enormous risks, particularly in Surrey, where the new unitary authority is likely to start its life with £4 billion of debt and an annual shortfall of £150 million in its operational budget. It could be a council in section 114 special economic measures from the moment of its creation. Given the level of need that I see described in my inbox, I am incredibly concerned that more parents and more generations of children will be let down. I think right hon. and hon. Members across Surrey will feel the same.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their plans, which I think have the correct intention, but I am incredibly concerned that the necessary financial foundations may not be in place to ensure that children are looked after properly. Ultimately, this debate comes down to one simple question: will the Government’s proposed SEND reforms deliver meaningful change, or will they simply repackage a system that continues to fail families? Judging from the state of my inbox, we cannot allow any more families to be failed.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate. As the motion states, it is vital that Parliament keeps a spotlight on the SEND system as the Government work to bring about the necessary reforms. “Necessary” is the right word, because the system that this Labour Government inherited is not working for families, for children, for local authorities, for our health service or for our teaching professionals. The last Government left the system close to breaking point, and it is this Labour Government who are building a system that works.
In Lancashire, the Government have increased the high needs block allocation to £223 million in 2026-27, a 56% increase on the 2018-19 allocation. They also committed an extra £19 million towards capital investment last year, with £23 million coming in this year—an uplift of £4 million to support the capital costs. Like councils across the country, Lancashire is benefiting from 90% of its SEND deficit being written off. However, my constituents in Hyndburn still face a lengthy wait for an EHCP to be finalised. Lancashire county council has issued only 17.3% of its plans within the 20-week requirement, so I am interested in the Minister’s plans to improve the accountability of local authorities. I am losing count of the number of families that have been in tears in my surgeries due to the failures of our county council, currently led by Reform, in making sure that we meet the needs of our children when they need that support and in providing certainty for parents in getting the education those children all deserve.
Parents and carers are desperate for a system that works with them, not against them, as we have heard in a number of contributions this evening. How we do the reform is as important as the reform itself. That is why I called for the Government to ensure they put the voices and views of parents, carers and young people at the heart of their reforms. It is undoubtedly evident that they strengthened the plans and, through the time the Government took to try to get this right, helped to positively shape the Government’s approach. Many of my constituents found that engagement refreshing and helpful. I was also delighted to welcome the Schools Minister to Haslingden high school, where we had a great morning with young people and the headteacher.
I am delighted that the Government’s ambitious road map for change recognises that the reforms cannot be piecemeal. It addresses the system as a whole. I do not have time to outline the many facets and focuses outlined in the White Paper, but I believe it starts to provide a road map for how we can deliver the change for every child, wherever they live, in order to end the postcode lottery in which they currently exist. A more consistent, earlier, clearer and fairer system is within reach. We need to be ambitious for our children, delivering expert SEND provision in every mainstream school, where no child is left behind.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I have had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the evaluation of their child’s needs has been conducted. One of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND needs, including: autism; ADHD; sensory processing disorder; demand avoidance; social, emotional and mental health; and severe anxiety and school trauma. They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there had been a series of failings in dealing with their situation—an inadequate and inaccurate EHCP, and school placements and support failures—and then went on to tell me the enormous impact on their family.
I honestly believe that everyone in this place wants to get the right improvements to this broken system.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily—they are brother and sister—got EHCPs after tribunal fairly early, because their parents were so robust. They then only got suitable schools after tribunal, against the will of the local authority, because their parents were so robust. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms to the process must be enforceable?
John Glen
I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we all have to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was a 140% expansion in the number of EHCPs to well over half a million. In generating that volume of demand, Members in all parts of the House—no matter who is in government—have to be honest about whether, given the budgets we have, we can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child. We are all trying to make the case to achieve that, whether through EHCPs giving us the legal backstop, or moving to an individual support plan in a school-based solution.
I want us to recognise that, in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have to be real about what we can and cannot provide. This is very delicate territory, because we are always concerned that we will be accused of denying that the needs exist, but what concerns me is that we will set expectations that the school will set up an individual definition of provision and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we have seen with the challenges over the past decade. There is a central tension in the White Paper that, as we move from a rights-based system of statutory entitlements to a resource-led system, the situation will automatically improve.
It seems to me that the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities are concerned that having set expectations in our country that EHCPs are legally enforceable, there will be an enforceability gap. With the proposed ISPs, although parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. If we standardise things over individual needs and move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we will risk getting into exactly the situation that we have reached in recent years.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He is treading this compassionate tightrope very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead The Way, which takes children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors, and some of those children are later able to go back into the school system. Rather than underdiagnosing, which, if we are not careful, might be the end result here, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that if we reconsider the settings, it is possible that children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced?
John Glen
Of course I do. This is where the problem is. If we move towards a standardised provision that is driven by central Government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should and needs to exist on an individual basis.
There is a core point about which I am still uncomfortable. In a situation where, as in 2024-25, parents won 95% to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that the system has defined needs that exist for which we cannot provide. We need to level with the country and with parents and say what we can provide and what we are actually unable to provide.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
John Glen
I will not have any more time, so I will not.
Let us not peddle a dishonesty by saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system. Frankly, we have got to the point where we need to look at the definitional parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we are going to actually deal with this problem.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my normal interests: my wife is a special needs co-ordinator in our local authority, the London borough of Bexley, and one of our children is in receipt of an EHCP. I know this journey; like other Members in the Chamber, I know the battles of being a parent in that position. I am the parent of twins and, as I have said before, I have had to battle for every single aspect of one child’s education and for no aspects of my other child’s education.
We have heard lots of criticism of what might be coming, and lots of criticism of the current system. Let us be frank: the current system is totally and utterly broken. I support the proposals because there are issues that we can put right, such as with Experts at Hand. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) says about the health aspects—there are things we still need to get right there. Three years ago, my local authority ended up with an Ofsted judgment of systemic failings in our SEND system, and there was no way of holding our local NHS provision to account on those matters. We have to get that right. With Experts at Hand and that early intervention, there are things that we can do.
We have heard about the individual support plans. I have to ask why on earth we are making young people wait a year or two until their EHCP is updated, particularly for some young people whose plans do not have the complexity that my daughter’s has. We could get that early intervention much more quickly and provide that support at a much earlier stage.
We have heard about the issue of standardised provision. I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), whose daughter’s needs are very different from my daughter’s needs. Within that issue, we need to look at the fact that some people need to be in mainstream education and some people need to be in a special school. We wonder why one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and why we have had the debate over welfare, but we isolate so many young people and then question why they are not available and ready to work.
The Minister knows that there are three issues that I think we can get right but about which I still have concerns: transition, getting those health aspects right, and support for professionals in the sector.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Last week I held a roundtable on the White Paper with Dartford residents. Although they welcome the greater focus on schools providing quicker and more flexible support, they are nervous about the level of resourcing that will be available to schools. They are also worried about the accountability of schools to parents through the new complaints procedure and about the perceived loss of rights for families compared with the current system. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reassurance from the Government on those issues?
Daniel Francis
I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about those issues. We can get this right—I do genuinely believe that. I thank the Minister for the engagement she has had with the sector and Back Benchers like myself through this process so that we can get right both the consultation and legislative changes. We need to accept that we are dealing with a system that is totally broken. Like my hon. Friend, I held my own consultation. I will not go into detail on it, but I heard long and hard from those parents.
My borough has gone through many things—the Ofsted judgment, the safety valve, which was a ticking time bomb for so many of our families and their provision. I was a councillor for 20 years in the London borough of Bexley, and I saw the system change fundamentally. I was leader of the opposition on the council and my wife was actually employed by the authority as a special needs co-ordinator, and if a family like mine could not get through the system, how on earth can any parent expect to get through the system?
That is why I do support these changes. We need to get the early intervention right. We wonder why we have inherited the system we have today for children with disabilities and special educational needs, but we saw the loss of Sure Start, and many other changes happened in those long 14 years. I thank the Minister, and I will continue to challenge her, but I do support these changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions do not allow other colleagues to speak. I call Chris Coghlan.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I first want to address the comments from the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I have enormous respect for him, but his underlying argument is flawed, because there is the same number of SEND children now as there was in 2010 and in 1978. The question is why the number fell so much up to 2016 and then rose, and I would suggest that the answer probably has something to do with the scrapping of Sure Start by my party and his, but that is for another day.
One month ago a SEN dad messaged me on Facebook about his autistic son, who has been out of school for seven years, with his tribunal delayed three times. He said that his son will now be out of education and employment for the rest of his life. He said that his son had been “left to rot” by his local authority and the NHS. I wrote to him to say how sorry I was. I suggested how he could get help and put him in touch with his MP, but then two weeks ago he wrote to me again. He said:
“My son is very unwell, and I can no longer carry on. I am mentally and physically exhausted, and I am electing to end my life. I intend to find peace. I simply cannot continue, and I refuse to see my son deteriorate further. There will be no one to care for him, so now the NHS will have to care for my son.”
We called 999 immediately, and the emergency services sent an ambulance.
We have seen too many families like this. I presented to the Government and published in The Times evidence that hundreds of SEND children are avoidably killing themselves due to public authority negligence. ITV has published evidence of misconduct and law breaking on SEND by 117 local authorities. I believe that the Government are serious about SEND reform, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming to Dorking tomorrow to meet Surrey SEND families, but family after family has testified to me that the legal rights that the Government are seeking to reduce can be the difference between life and death.
When a council officer determines that a child does not need an EHCP when they know that that child does in fact need an EHCP, that is serious misconduct. We know that this is happening on a massive scale because families win the resulting tribunals 98% of the time. Councils are betting that they can save money because the families are too exhausted to take them to tribunal. Children are killing themselves as a result.
Under-resourcing is no excuse.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions under-resourcing. At West Sussex county council, the department just put an answerphone message on its system saying, “We are overwhelmed. We cannot take any calls today.” Does he agree that the parents who are navigating the system and often describe it as a “fight” do not have the opportunity just to put their answerphone on or not show up for their kids that day because they are overwhelmed, and that we need to do far more for them?
Chris Coghlan
I entirely agree. An under-resourced officer can still determine need, still issue an EHCP and still be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That, at least, is honest.
I know that many council officers do the right thing, but when a council officer commits misconduct that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? Here we are, with pervasive local authority law breaking, hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, and a Government who plan to cut the rights that can save their lives.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech, but is not the reality that if every single EHCP was properly diagnosed and the need expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with it?
Chris Coghlan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and I completely disagree. Think about the autistic boy I was talking about at the start of my speech. He has been out of school for seven years and his father has quit his job to look after him. We have lost a lifetime’s earnings from that person and we have the costs of social services. I am convinced that by the time we take all that into account, an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability for local authorities and legally enforceable rights would, in the long run, be far cheaper than what we have today.
The public will ask Members of this House what they knew about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves while there are myths about over-diagnosis and everything else, when they knew it, and what they did about it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
SEND provision is a fraught and highly emotional issue, because of the stakes at play: education, inclusion and, above all, dignity. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here from across the House, with the exception of only a couple of parties. Like others, I want to share the experiences of my constituents.
A few months ago, I met the senior leadership team at Cornwall Education Learning Trust, the organisation that runs the majority of the primary and secondary schools in my constituency. To their credit, they acknowledged that they have not always got things right, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. They were candid about the reason why, which is that, without an EHCP, they simply do not have the funding to support many of the children who need it most.
Demand for EHCPs is incredibly high. Cornwall council receives over 100 requests every single month, yet in 2024 it was ranked as the second-worst local authority in the entire country for issuing EHCPs within the required timeframe of 20 weeks. The causes are clear: a shortage of educational psychologists, the complexity of multi-agency co-ordination, and a system overwhelmed by demand. The consequences for children in my constituency are devastating, and I want to mention some of them.
One of my constituents has an adopted daughter with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Her school submitted a referral for an EHCP in March 2024. The council rejected it, her father fought back through appeals and a tribunal, and the council eventually conceded—an all-too-common farce, as we have heard. At the end of all that, the council still failed to produce a completed plan until 2026. That is two years of his daughter’s education lost. Another constituent has been waiting since August 2025 for the outcome of his daughter’s educational psychologist assessment. They are still waiting and his daughter remains without suitable provision. A third constituent’s son has not had appropriate education for a significant period. His school cannot meet his needs, he is not attending, and his family are waiting for an EHCP. Three families, three children, all failed by a system that was supposed to protect them.
The Government’s White Paper promises a £1.8 billion investment in specialist support, including educational psychologists, and commits to training over 200 more psychologists per year from 2026, putting mental health support in every school, and reducing the postcode lottery and the attainment gap. I welcome that ambition, but I say to Ministers that the consultation closes on 18 May and families cannot wait until 2029 for legislative change.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
One of the things that shocked me most when I was elected was how much we are failing children with special educational needs. We all get those emails in our inbox, and they are heartrending. When we meet those parents, we can see the stress and the strain etched in their faces, and we can only imagine what it is like for the child to be in a school where they feel that they are not understood and they are not supported. How we are treating these people at the moment is shocking.
I really welcome the fact that the Government are trying to do something to change that situation and to make it better. I worry, though, that we need to make sure that there are the resources to deliver what those families deserve. Obviously that means money, but it also means the educational psychologists and the other expertise that we need, and proper training for all school staff so they know how to deal with the various needs of the children in their school. I also worry that parents cannot and must not lose the ability to take action to fight for their children’s rights.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools and maintaining legally enforceable protections for children and young people should not be competing games?
Charlotte Cane
I agree; we must not set things up in competition.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is she going to do to make sure that every school in every area has the specialist resources it needs to deliver for its children? How is she going to make sure that rural areas such as mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to those resources for all schools and all children? It takes longer and therefore it costs more to get those across the area. What is she going to put in place to make sure that parents retain the right to fight for and enforce their children’s rights?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to intervene, because I could see that the Member was going to speak very briefly, but interventions are not helping other Members in the Chamber.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
For too long, parents and carers in Gloucester have had to fight a broken system that was not delivering the best chance in life for their children. This Government inherited a SEND system that did not include parents and carers in the conversation, did not value their children and had led to a complete breakdown of trust between families and the system that was meant to support them. I am pleased that this Government have made fixing that system a top priority. As Gloucester’s MP, I have always believed that every child in my city deserves the best start in life, and I hope that these reforms will restore trust in the system and ensure that every child with SEND gets the support they deserve.
When I talk to constituents about SEND, I often hear the same reflection: the previous Government never listened to them, did not include them in those discussions and did not take them seriously. I know that Ministers have been clear that these reforms had to be done with parents and carers and families, and I am really pleased to see that they have made good on that promise and continue to do so; I hope that they will continue that approach through the latest consultation.
In my city of Gloucester, I have been listening to parents and carers too. I have met dozens of parents in my surgeries, I ran a community consultation so that families could say what they wanted to see in the White Paper, and I hosted a brilliant parents and carers roundtable in the city centre. From that, I was pleased to produce my “SEND in Gloucester” report, which I presented to the Minister earlier this year.
Residents made several recommendations in that report, and an important one was for there to be more support early on. Parents and carers felt that they often spotted the signs of additional need early, but it took years for any formal support to be introduced. Often the support would only come at a crisis point, when early intervention could have prevented the crisis in the first place. I also visited Dingley’s Promise early years centre in Coney Hill, which shows the benefits of early intervention and the importance of targeted support at the early years level. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the recommendations of Gloucester residents on early intervention by putting more money into early years as part of these reforms.
Another key takeaway from the report was a lack of funding and capacity for school special educational needs co-ordinators. Parents and carers repeatedly highlighted that many SENCOs are working tirelessly but are fighting the broken system. They felt that making SENCOs full time, providing high levels of specialist training and giving them a more senior role in schools could have a big impact. If I could make one ask of the Minister today, it would be to consider extending the Government’s commitment to providing the best possible school experience for children with SEND by providing for a full-time, fully qualified SENCO in every Gloucester school.
Finally, I have spoken to many residents since these reforms were announced. While the reaction has been mostly positive, I know that concerns remain in communities across my city, particularly among those families whose children are receiving an EOTAS package. I understand that, and I will continue to raise their voices with Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance today. I want to again underline the importance of this moment. We must give our schools and teachers the resources they need to deliver for our children, we must rebuild trust with families who have been so badly let down in the past, and we must get these reforms right so that every child with SEND can have the best chance in life.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate. We have heard varying views on the question of demand, with some people saying that it has not gone up at all and that others saying it has. I have relied on the House of Commons Library to tell me that since 2015 demand for EHCPs has ballooned by 140% and that in 2025 there were 13 times more people waiting for an autism assessment than there were in 2019.
Hon. Members across the House have described very effectively the extraordinary diagnosis of a system that has been unable to meet demand, so I will not replay the tape. The 98% tribunal success rate is symptomatic of that, and it is pretty shocking. It shows that the system is having to be fought against systemically, which is deeply worrying. Members across the House have replayed case studies from their own inboxes, but I do not have time to go into the cases of child Y, child L, child F, child D and the many others, all of whom have finally come to their Member of Parliament because they could see no way through and because the computer had said no. It has come to that, for them, but that should not be the case.
In the time remaining, I want to take a strategic approach and look upstream. In March last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was sold on the idea that overdiagnosis was at the root cause of mental health illness. On 1 June, I asked the Secretary of State for Education whether any work was being done between her Department and the Health Department on what was causing the increased demand on the special educational needs system. She said that she was very concerned indeed about that. I then waited until 1 December before asking what she and the Health Secretary had done in the intervening seven months. I think it was the Minister for School Standards who kindly said that she was very concerned about it. Five days later, the Health Secretary announced that there was going to be a six-month study into the causes of the increase in demand on the special educational needs system, and that it would report in the summer. I do not think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. As a nation, we need to increase our understanding of this phenomenon that we are experiencing—
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I should like to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as the parent of a child with an EHCP. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate. This is a deeply important subject and, like many Members across the House, I have an inbox full of cases of SEND parents who are struggling under the current system. Let us be clear: it is absolutely broken.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether the current system, or indeed our society as a whole, has the ability to meet all presenting needs. I would like to clarify something: unmet need does not magically disappear. It does not just go away. It festers and grows, which is what we see under the current system. We see children’s needs not being met at the earliest opportunity and being met only when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens, and we end up with a system that ultimately lets down children.
The need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper goes to the heart of who we are as a party. Equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. It is crucial that a child is not excluded from receiving education on the same basis as their able-bodied peers just because they are disabled or have an additional need. It is completely unacceptable if that continues to happen to them. The system that we have is antagonistic and adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be the norm for every parent: obtaining a decent education for their children.
I would like to speak to some of the concerns—I notice that I have a short amount of time left—around the White Paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system. If it is going to work, parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work. Accountability is about understanding, if my child’s school—hypothetically and realistically—does not do what it is supposed to do, how I make the school do it and what recourse I have to ensure that it does so.
Jen Craft
We provide for it by meeting need at the earliest opportunity. It is about addressing it before it reaches crisis point, unlike the situation we are in now. We would not do this for any other condition. We would not say, “There are too many people out there with cancer—we should stop diagnosing cancer.” It would not work like that. We do not turn around and say, “Too many people are presenting a need”—we meet it. Imagine if we addressed the education system as a whole like we address SEND education—as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people who are willing, equipped and able to go out into the world and shape our future society and our world. Why do we not see that opportunity for SEND children, as we do for the wider school population?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is so much untapped potential in the parents who are currently trapped at home trying to support their children who are not being supported into schools? When I hosted a recent roundtable with parents in my constituency, I met ex-teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologists, and none of them are at work because they are not being supported.
Jen Craft
I agree 100%. We could work out the lifetime cost of a parent being out of work to care for their child who should be in education or in a suitable school, or even the cost of a parent having to draw back from working a certain amount of hours or from reaching where they could go in their career because of the stress that the system puts on them. That leads to some of the concerns I have with the White Paper.
This White Paper has to work—I want to start from that basis—for families like mine, for people who are struggling and for people who see the current system as failing them. It has to work, and it is in danger of not working on a few points. No. 1 is trust, which I mentioned. The second one is the workforce. That cannot be solved by the Department for Education on its own. A crucial part of that workforce comes from the Department of Health and Social Care. The Secretary of State for Health must publish a statement on how he will deliver the SEND workforce, particularly the paediatric allied healthcare workforce. Otherwise, I am sorry to say that this plan will struggle to get off the ground.
Finally, if there is one thing that can be brought to this plan that will change how the system works and the stress and strain it puts on parents, it is support for parents. Quite often, parents feel like they are under attack. If your child receives a diagnosis of SEND, you feel like your parenting method, who you are and the benefits you bring to your family are constantly questioned, and you do not know where to go for support. If we can support parents to implement the same intervention measures at home, as well as giving them the respite they need and the support to know they are not alone and to be able to properly support their child through education, this White Paper can truly deliver on the promise it holds.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this profoundly important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing it. SEND is one of the most common and most urgent issues raised by struggling families and overstretched schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as it is for all Members from across the House.
The situation cannot be allowed to continue. We all agree that the system is broken and needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the scale of the crisis and are attempting to bring forward wide-ranging reform, but good intentions must be matched by good policy. Consequently, I believe that a number of concerns must be addressed urgently if the reforms are to succeed.
First, on consultation, the Government have told us that their new framework is being shaped in partnership with families, schools and other stakeholders, but serious questions remain about the adequacy and scope of that consultation. Recent reports show that Members have been effectively guided by the Department of Education on how they should respond to the consultation. That risks fatally undermining confidence in the process; consultation must be genuine and transparent.
Secondly, on implementation, it is concerning that local authorities are already being instructed to begin reforming their systems by developing local plans and reshaping provision before the consultation has even concluded. That risks creating confusion, inconsistency and instability in a system that is already under immense strain, and it risks the perception that public consultation and consent for vital policy proposals are being treated as an afterthought, rather than as central to policy making process.
Thirdly, on capacity, ambitious reforms require the workforce to deliver them. We need clarity on how many trained professionals will be required, how initiatives such as the proposed experts-at-hand service will be staffed, and how training for teachers will be delivered. Without that detail, we run the risk of expectations outstripping reality.
Finally, on accountability, any changes to tribunal arrangements must not weaken families’ ability to challenge decisions, not least because they have been so successful in appealing them—we have heard the 99% figure. For many parents, the tribunal system is not an optional preference but a safeguard of last resort that must be preserved.
Will the Government ensure that the ongoing consultation genuinely reflects the voices of families, schools and experts? Will it provide clarity on workforce training and funding? Will it protect the rights of families to challenge decisions? Will it ensure that reforms are implemented in a way that is transparent, evidence-led and properly resourced and has built-in accountability? If we get this right, we can transform lives for the better, but if we get it wrong, children will bear the cost for years to come.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We know the stories, the concerns, the trauma, and the battles and fights. Of course, we know the embedded inequality in the system, in which parents with little agency have little voice. But what is so important is that we recognise that the Children and Families Act 2014 ultimately never came with the funding, staffing, resourcing or culture change that were needed. I will focus on three things today: culture, resourcing and funding, and governance.
On culture, although we have heard about rising attainment for so many children, we know that other children just never get that opportunity. Their right to an education is denied. We must change the pedagogy in the education system to make it an inclusive environment, and to ensure that the high-stakes behaviours approach is ended, because it denies neuroatypical children an education. We must address that clash, which is still being driven by a results-based system, and consider children and their long-term future more holistically.
I certainly encourage the Minister to look at the work of Sir Ken Robinson, who understood that the system needs to be built around the child, as opposed to the child fitting into the system, and the importance of developing a nurturing environment. In York, we talk about belonging going beyond nurturing. We need to consider how we address the security that a child needs to thrive in any environment, putting that framing around the child and integrating it with a trauma-informed approach. We have heard about adoption today and the trauma that those children experience, but we know that so many children have adverse childhood experiences such as violence and neglect in the home and have challenging pasts that have intersected with their SEND needs, so we must ensure that that approach is put in place.
On funding, if we can move resources in this place to fund our national security, we can move funding to secure children’s security as well. We need to resource the system, and not only financially—although without that, it will never succeed—but also, as many have said, with a workforce plan that is integrated with the NHS workforce plan, so that we know when resources will come on stream.
That brings me to governance. Risk and responsibility sit in the wrong place in the system, which is why we must look at the impact of the academisation programme on where the lines of accountability are. It is almost impossible to hold those schools to account in the system we have now. I will certainly want to extend these discussions with the Minister when I get the opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
9.35 pm
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate. It is clear from the passionate contributions we have heard that the problems are widespread and the SEND system is completely broken. We have all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s recent White Paper as an important step in the right direction. We have to address the growing need and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, parents, families and society as a whole.
We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we are here now and the Liberal Democrats welcome the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream settings. If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends and be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school. Inclusion bases are welcome, and they include the one being opened at King Edward VI community college in my constituency, with a focus on bringing children back into school after dropping out, following a difficult transition into year 7, and helping them to become part of the school community again. This model has good potential to succeed if properly resourced. However, many questions remain about funding, children’s rights and staffing.
On funding, the £4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write-off, are welcome, but we are worried that the Government are holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The Government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write-off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give. The Government have introduced some good policies but have failed to fully fund them, including breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and, today, the healthy school standards. That will be more expensive, so will it be fully funded for schools?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Caroline Voaden
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two SEND systems in parallel during the transition period.
On parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system. Removing power from SEND tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child. Given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right under the new system?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents’ ability to challenge the system is unacceptable. The anxiety of parents is understandable. Many are worried that their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. Will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted, and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms and retain the key rights that they have.
On staffing, we welcome the Experts at Hand service to embed specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need a credible workforce plan to see how the Government are going to recruit and train all the staff needed and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I am concerned about the need for more learning support staff—the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring that mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, but a SEND system focused on inclusion simply cannot be implemented without them, so I would like to hear further detail from the Minister about how the Government believe schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff.
Away from budgets and staffing, there are other changes that we can make in the way that we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion. Learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children’s mental health, but for their emotional development, and it simply must be given more space. We believe that the current direction of travel is the right one, but all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted upon with those who will be impacted most by the changes—the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today.
This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am inundated with correspondence from constituents from across Keighley and the wider Bradford district challenging the quality of EHCPs and the diagnosis procedure. One of my big concerns is that the White Paper reforms will lead to a standardised approach associated with the ISPs that will be rolled out. Does the shadow Minister agree with me about the direction that these reforms are going in under this Labour Government?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes the same point that has been made to me by many parents about the one-size-fits-all approach of these reforms. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to try to reassure some of those parents, because parents want answers and the children and families who are affected deserve them.
I have spoken to many parents and representative groups. There is a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms—a view that is shared by many parent-carer forums—which has not been helped by the delay to the White Paper or the drip-drip briefings suggesting that EHCPs would simply be scrapped. The Conservative position is clear: any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law and the Government must not water down those rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince, you have just stumbled into the Chamber—I don’t think so.
Saqib Bhatti
I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today.
The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Parents in my constituency who have been in the SEND system are really fearful that we will have the White Paper and more change will be proposed, when the key element of delivery is local councils. The problem is that the situation is so patchy. Some councils are absolutely appalling—one in my area had an excoriating report—but others manage; nobody is brilliant, but some try to get by and do the EHCPs. How are we going to tackle patchy delivery?
Saqib Bhatti
I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer.
A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty.
We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything.
A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from.
The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce?
Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have said it better myself. That issue was in my borough, but the truth is that there are special schools across the country where the funding has been taken away. This is going to be essential, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the Minister explain to those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training as these reforms are rolled out? The founder of the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group has asked if there will be a legal backing for ISPs, and a number of Members have also made points on enforceability.
I want to get straight to the funding point, which is where I will end my remarks. At the Budget, the OBR identified a £6 billion SEND funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about that previously, she used the word “scaremongering”, but these are not our figures; they are figures from the OBR, based on information provided by the Government. Will the Minister confirm how large the shortfall is? Having looked at the numbers, I think it has shortened, but maybe she will be able to give a bit more clarity. If the gap was funded entirely from in the DFE’s £69 billion budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools’ spending per pupil—this is according to the OBR, by the way. There is no spending review until 2028-29, so maybe the Minister can give me some clarity on which Departments might be giving up their money for the sake of these SEND reforms. I hope she can provide some answers; I will write to her with the questions that I have not been able to ask.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I am grateful for the huge interest across the Chamber in this critically important issue. Tonight, we heard from so many different Members of Parliament the voices of children and families; I thank MPs for the efforts they have made to listen to those children and families, and to bring their voices to me personally and into the Chamber. I appreciate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing this important debate to the House and for his long-standing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I think we have all heard the depth and strength of concern, and the agreement that at the moment, the system is broken and not working for so many families.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Georgia Gould
I do not have much time, so I am not going to take interventions. I want to be able to answer the points that have been put to me.
Too many children have been left without provision, and parents try to explain to their children why they are not at school alongside their friends. Too many parents are having to battle—we have heard the word “fight” time and time again in this conversation. I say to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and to everyone else in the Chamber that I am committed to working constructively and on a cross-party basis on this issue. It is too important to not take all views into account and work together, so I really welcome opportunities to talk to individuals about the issues that have been raised in the debate. However, I will not apologise for taking longer to develop these reforms, because that time has been spent talking to thousands of parents, young people and teachers around the country to make sure their voices were embedded in what we put out for consultation. I also make no apology for taking time to transition into these reforms. As we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, trust is low, and it is really important that we build the new system with children and families.
That does not mean, though, that we are not acting now. The investment we have been talking about is going into our communities straightaway, whether that is the £3.7 billion that we are already starting to invest in specialist places around the country or the £4 billion that we are investing in the services we have talked about today: Experts at Hand, the educational psychologists and speech and language therapists who will now be available to local schools; and the inclusive mainstream fund, which will be going directly into schools. Those are huge investments that this Government are making. The OBR made its projections before it had seen our reform plans and the huge investments we are making, including new investment going in during 2028-29, which I know the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East will have seen.
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has raised the importance of early intervention and of putting in as much support as possible as quickly as possible. So many families have told me that if support had been available much quicker, their needs would not have escalated—they would not be out of education and would not have needed to leave their local schools. We have also heard about the importance of inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about why it is so critical that children with special educational needs and disabilities are at the heart of the education system. They have so much to offer, and every school should be an inclusive school, but that does not mean that we do not also need special schools, and the £3.7 billion of investment I have talked about will create new specialist places.
Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. First and most importantly, our intention in these reforms is to improve outcomes for children. That is our guiding principle—our No. 1 outcome. The hon. Member mentioned the long waiting lists to which so many families are exposed. Addressing those waits is the point of the reforms. We are putting in place educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and so many others, so that schools can draw on them and children can access that support without a lengthy wait or a battle for an EHCP and a diagnosis. Under our reform plans, that provision will be available as part of the mainstream system.
Critically, education, health and care plans will remain, and they will be available for children who need them. We know that too many children are forced to apply to get an EHCP because their needs are not being met in mainstream schools. The majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our school system do not have an EHCP, but are on the SEND register. They are the children who are often being badly let down. Our reforms will extend rights for those children, including new statutory duties on schools to develop inclusion plans and individual support plans. There will be new layers of support with targeted and targeted plus, new national standards, and new duties on teacher training. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) spoke powerfully about the importance of teacher training, with every single teacher trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that every class is accessible.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked expertly about the issue. We are grateful for the work of her Committee and the huge amount of time it put in to its report. I will address her points about transition and accountability within the transition. There are safeguards that I think will reassure parents: every child who is in a special school will remain in a special school, we will build the new system before anyone transitions into that new system, and somebody with an existing EHCP will move on to either an EHCP or an individual support plan, and that will be backed by the tribunal.
There were lots of questions about individual support plans and accountability. Ofsted will be looking at individual support plans and developing a new complaints process with an independent role. Importantly, if a family does not feel that their needs are being met by the mainstream system, they will still be able to request a needs assessment and that will be backed by the tribunal. There will still be access to the tribunal, and the tribunal will remain an important part of the system.
We do not want families to have to go to a tribunal, though. We want to deliver a system that works, where families’ voices are put at the heart of decision making and where accountability sits not on the shoulders of families, but that it is for us—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Government—to hold local authorities to account. I was asked why we are we going ahead with local SEND reform plans and asking councils to develop them. We are clear that councils need to deliver today for children with special educational needs and disabilities; as we have heard in the debate, there is too much failure and we are determined to hold councils to account.
We are committed to a full consultation. We welcome comments on every aspect of these proposals, and I ask everyone in this Chamber to make sure that you are holding events, talking to your constituents and pointing them towards the consultation, because this is a generational opportunity to change the system. Families have been failed for too long, and it is only by listening to them that we will get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There were far too many uses of “you” and “your” throughout speeches today. Members need to check the language they use. I call Gregory Stafford to wind up.
Gregory Stafford
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that the speeches we have heard today have been wide-ranging and passionate. I thank all those who have spoken, all those who unfortunately did not manage to speak and the many Members who supported this debate. I am leading it, but plenty of Members across the House supported it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
The one thing that united every speaker in this debate was a clear desire to improve a system that is not working for young people in our constituencies. We may disagree about the exact process to get there, but I say to the Minister that nobody in this House is expressing anything other than what they have heard from their own constituents. In some cases, that may be support for the Government’s proposals, but we have to be honest that many of our constituents are expressing concerns. The Minister should not squander this Government’s opportunity. I know there are antibodies from Government Members whenever I open my mouth about anything, but I am passionate about this issue, and I think that we—together, on both sides of the House—can improve what the Government are doing and ensure that the legal protections remain, while improving the system.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in writing a number of the questions asked by Members across the House that she was unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. I also hope that she will assess the responses to the White Paper with an open mind, with the aim of ensuring that every child has a legal right to the education that he or she deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that SEND is an issue that affects every constituency; acknowledges that all hon. Members represent families who face daily challenges in navigating a system that can feel complex, inconsistent and under-resourced; further believes that ensuring that every child, regardless of their needs, has access to the education, care and opportunities they deserve is not only a matter of policy but of fairness and equality; notes that despite commitments, progress on reform remains slow; further notes the time taken to publish the White Paper entitled Every Child Achieving and Thriving which was bitterly disappointing for families struggling to secure the support their children need; and agrees that it is vital that SEND remains high on the Government’s agenda and that Parliament continues to hold a spotlight on the challenges faced by children, parents, schools and local authorities.
Business without Debate
Young Cancer Patients: Experiences and Outcomes
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to secure this important debate on a subject that matters deeply to me in my role as parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust, and as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people. It is an issue that matters profoundly to my constituents. In Mansfield, I am contacted regularly by young people, by parents and by families whose lives have been turned upside down by a cancer diagnosis. They write to me not just about treatment but about their wider experience—the fear, the uncertainty, and the disruption to education, work and relationships. They write because they want to be heard, and I hope that tonight the House, and indeed the Government, will listen.
Every few hours in the United Kingdom, a young person hears the words, “You have cancer”. It is mostly blood cancer, including leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma—the most common cancers among children, teenagers and young adults in the UK. The reality is stark: more young people are getting cancer. Rates have risen by a quarter since the early 1990s, and the increase is projected to continue. Cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among teenagers and young adults in the UK, but even for those who survive, the impact can be lifelong—physically, emotionally and socially—especially when the right support is not there. This is happening at a time when life is already tough for young people, many of whom are facing economic uncertainty, struggling with mental health issues, and worrying about their futures. A cancer diagnosis compounds all that, often at the most formative stage of life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which is clearly very important to him—he has illustrated that through his commitment to these debates, which he always gets involved in. I congratulate him on that.
In Northern Ireland, approximately 60 children under the age of 16, and 80 teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24, are diagnosed with cancer each year. Although these cases are rare and account for only 1% of all diagnoses, they require a highly specialised, family-centred approach. Around 87% of young people survive for at least one year, and 78% survive for five years or more. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improvements can be made to ensure that our children have the best possible treatment, regardless of where they live? There should be no box for them; they should get treatment wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
Steve Yemm
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
This is Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month, and it is right that we use this moment to shine a light on a group that is too often overlooked: young people who fall between children’s and adult services, and whose needs are too often not fully recognised. Before 1990, young people with cancer were treated either on children’s wards or alongside much older adults, with very little recognition of their distinct needs. The Teenage Cancer Trust changed that. It pioneered specialist care for 13 to 24-year-olds, creating dedicated units within the NHS that are staffed by expert nurses and youth workers, and which are designed to support not just treatment but the whole person. Today, 28 units across the UK help young people to receive care, alongside others their own age, in environments that protect their independence, dignity and mental health. At that age, cancer is not just a medical condition; it disrupts young people’s education, relationships, identity and plans for the future.
We know that when young people receive age-appropriate care, their experiences and outcomes improve significantly, but only around half of young people with cancer currently benefit from this type of specialist support. One of the most critical issues facing young people with cancer is the speed of diagnosis. Unlike many adult cancers, those affecting young people are often rare and cannot be prevented. Blood cancer, which is the most common cancer for young people, does not have the same focus or understanding as other types of cancers. That means early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, yet too many young people face delays.
Awareness of cancer symptoms among young people remains worryingly low. Fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds can identify key warning signs—things like unexplained lumps, pain, tiredness or significant weight changes. In Mansfield, I have heard directly from families about the consequences of that lack of awareness: multiple GP visits, uncertainty and delays before being referred for diagnosis. Indeed, nearly half of young people with cancer report attending three or more GP appointments before being referred. That experience was echoed by the family of 11-year-old Joel from Mansfield, who in 2024 sadly passed away after a nine-month battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He made four initial GP visits and presented with a range of symptoms, which were dismissed as simply bruising from football or as a laundry detergent allergy. After the symptoms worsened, it took a second opinion from another GP and an emergency A&E visit before the cancer was diagnosed correctly.
It is important to recognise that such delays are not just clinical; they are often psychological. Evidence shows that waiting two months or more for a diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression. I ask the Minister, how will the Government ensure that teenagers and young adults are not simply funnelled through paediatric diagnostic pathways, but are recognised as a distinct group with distinct needs? What steps will be taken to raise awareness, both among young people and across primary care, of the signs and symptoms of cancer in this particular age group?
The second issue that I want to address is psychological support. A cancer diagnosis at any age is devastating, but for a young person it is often overwhelming. They face fears about survival, about treatment and about their future. Their education is interrupted, their friendships are disrupted and their sense of identity can be shaken. It is deeply concerning. Studies including research from Young Lives vs Cancer, which provides specialist social care support, show that 90% of young people undergoing cancer treatment experience anxiety, 83% report loneliness, 70% experience depression and nearly half experience panic attacks.
Steve Yemm
In view of the time, I will continue, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
These are not marginal figures. They represent the overwhelming majority, yet despite a clear NHS commitment that every young person should have access to mental health support, provision remains inconsistent. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. Five years ago, the Teenage Cancer Trust warned of that in its “#NotOK” report, but today progress remains limited.
In Mansfield, families have raised with me the difficulty of accessing timely mental health support during and after treatment. The family of Eilidh, a 23-year-old from Mansfield who was diagnosed with a rare lung cancer at the age of 20 after initially being reassured that nothing was wrong, made that point to me. She underwent the removal of an entire lung, but what followed was a lack of clear aftercare and support, with no structured rehabilitation, limited guidance on recovery and ongoing difficulty in navigating care. Her experience highlights not just the physical impact of cancer treatment, but the confusion, anxiety and gaps in support that too many young people face once treatment ends. I ask the Minister what funding and timelines are in place to ensure that every young person with cancer can access specialist psychological support, and not just during treatment but for at least two years afterwards.
The third issue is access to clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes and developing new treatments, but teenagers and young adults are significantly less likely than other age groups to take part, not because they do not wish to but because the system does not work for them. They are often excluded because of age restrictions: they are too old for paediatric trials and too young for adult trials. They are more likely to have rare cancers, meaning that fewer trials are available. I refer again to Joel from Mansfield: his family asked his doctors about opportunities to participate in a clinical trial, but were told that there were none. Even where trials exist, information can be difficult to find, both for clinicians and for parents.
The ambition has been clear—50% participation by 2025—but progress has been slow. No young person should miss out on a potentially lifesaving opportunity simply because of their age, so I ask the Minister how the Government will measure and report progress on improving access to clinical trials for young people, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery.
Finally, I want to address the issue of data. Too often, young people with cancer are effectively invisible in the system. Data is not consistently collected, not consistently reported and not always broken down in a way that allows us to understand their experiences. Without good data, it is hard to identify inequalities, we cannot target improvements and we cannot ensure accountability. What steps will the Minister take to improve the collection and publication of age-specific data on cancer outcomes for teenagers and young adults?
To conclude, the issues I have spoken about today matter deeply to my constituents in Mansfield and to the young people facing cancer today across the country. They also matter to the families supporting them, and they matter to all of us who believe that no young person should face this disease without the care and support they deserve. The evidence is clear: when young people receive timely diagnosis, age-appropriate care, access to psychological support and opportunities to participate in clinical trials, their outcomes improve. The Teenage Cancer Trust has shown what is possible, but it cannot do it alone. If we are serious about improving outcomes, the commitments in the national cancer plan must be delivered with urgency, funding and accountability. We need to improve awareness, we need to remove barriers and we must ensure that young people are no longer overlooked or underserved.
I will close with a simple request to the Minister: will she commit, alongside the Secretary of State who promised me personally that he would do so, to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit to hear directly from young people to understand their experiences and to see at first hand the difference that specialist age-appropriate care can make? If we truly listen to those young people, we will know exactly what needs to change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this very important debate, which, as we heard, is taking place during Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month. I thank him for his very important work on the all-party parliamentary group on cancer in children and young people, as well as for his role as a parliamentary champion for the Teenage Cancer Trust. I am grateful to him for the invitation he has just made for me to visit a Teenage Cancer Trust unit, which I would be very pleased to accept. I pay tribute to some of the fantastic charities that he and I have both worked with: Teenage Cancer Trust, Young Lives vs Cancer and Children with Cancer UK, to name just a few. They supported us to write the national cancer plan. Now that the plan is published, they will play a vital role in its delivery.
Cancer remains a leading cause of death for young people under the age of fourteen. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like for those children and young people, who have their whole life ahead of them, to hear the words, “You have cancer,” not to mention those mums and dads who go through the nightmare of seeing their child suffer. It is true that 78% of children with cancer aged between eight and 15 said they were “very well looked after” by the NHS, but I will not be satisfied until that number reaches 100%. There are so many areas where we must do better, particularly when it comes to patient experience. My hon. Friend laid out clearly in his opening remarks what some of those areas are, so I will go through them one at a time.
Thanks to my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), we now have a plan that includes a dedicated chapter on children and young people setting out how the Government will address their unique needs. We will begin to shift the dial on detecting, diagnosing and treating cancers in young people, and we will continue to listen to young people and their families, through our patient experience panel, to ensure that lived experience sits at the heart of everything we do.
Chris Bloore
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate; he has been a champion on this issue since he came to this place. The Minister mentioned patient experience. One issue that has been brought to my attention in my surgeries is that, after the often intensive clinical process of a young person going through a cancer diagnosis, getting treatment and getting through the other side, the period after the all-clear is an intense time of social isolation. Significant mental health support is required to get them back and integrated into school, college or work. Would she be prepared to meet me and young people who have been through that experience to discuss how we can improve the system, so that they can integrate back into normal life as quickly and as efficiently as possible?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I will also commit to meeting him and the young people he mentions, perhaps in co-ordination with my visit to the Teenage Cancer Trust. I hope there will be plenty of opportunity to meet young people during that visit. It is a yes to both of those requests.
We heard from the children and young people cancer taskforce how many parents have been forced to cut back on food and other expenses to pay for the travel to treatment. When a child is diagnosed with cancer, their family’s only focus should be on helping them to recover and getting them well, not on whether they can afford the petrol or the bus fare to get to their next appointment. That is why, through the plan, we are investing up to £10 million a year to support families with travel costs. This fund will make the world of difference to parents. It does not matter what someone earns; if their child needs treatment, we will help to get them there.
We are also transforming the experience of care in hospital by making sure that every child and young person with cancer has access to high-quality, age-appropriate psychological support, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) both asked about. That support should be from diagnosis, through treatment and beyond; I will take on board the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for that support to last up to two years post treatment. He spoke about the importance of early referrals to teenage and young adult multidisciplinary teams, with youth support co-ordinators on hand to help young people to navigate the huge journey they are going to have to go on, with the emotional impact of cancer alongside challenges around education, perhaps fertility and their long-term wellbeing.
The Government are committed to diagnosing cancer in children and young people faster to ensure that they get the treatment and care they need as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend set out in his speech, this speed is of the utmost importance, so we will remove the barriers that stand in the way of timely diagnosis by making sure that young people’s needs are embedded into the design of neighbourhood health services.
Just before recess, the Minister for Care announced the first 27 of 250 one-stop health shops that will be up and running next year, with 120 planned by the end of this Parliament. These offer a new model of care, as set out in our 10-year plan for health, with better access to specialist support and the safe roll-out of AI.
Many colleagues—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)—have been pushing the Government for a long time to go further on research, which is why we are making research into improving outcomes for children, especially into kinder and more gentle treatments, a national research priority. The Department will take a more joined-up approach to research priorities using data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield urged us to do, so that efforts are focused where they can make the greatest difference. We will break down the barriers that prevent young people from accessing clinical trials, particularly those who do not often qualify for paediatric or adult trials, by requiring clinical justifications for age limits, while also strengthening data collection across the cancer pathway.
In the next few months, the Department will establish a reformed national cancer board, once a co-chair has been appointed to oversee and monitor the implementation of our cancer plan. The board will include a dedicated lead for children and young people’s cancer, ensuring that this work is driven forward with clear accountability and focus. They will make sure that we are staying on track. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will play his part in that too.
The Government believe that all children and young people, no matter their circumstances, deserve support to achieve the very best outcomes in life, but most importantly to live fulfilling and happy lives. Alongside our work on cancer, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives such as poor diet, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. We have abolished the two-child benefit cap, taking half a million children out of destitution, shame and hunger. We have brought in free breakfast clubs and extended free school meals so that kids start school with hungry minds, not hungry bellies. We also introduced the soft drinks industry levy, a warm home discount scheme that reaches millions more, and a generational ban on smoking. Awaab’s law will cut pollution and clean up the air that our children breathe.
This year, I am determined to do everything I can for children and young people with cancer. I have my foot on the accelerator, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend in the months ahead on this work.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to speak about this statutory instrument, which as Members will see contains a set of technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. The instrument is designed to ensure that the regulations work exactly as intended, with clear, workable rules for regulators and building control professionals, and effective protections for third parties.
By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. Forty-five developers have joined the responsible actors scheme. Together, they are responsible for remediating more than 2,500 buildings, at an estimated cost of around £4.1 billion. The scheme is backed by planning and building control prohibitions, which would be applied to eligible developers that decide not to join the scheme or have their membership revoked for non-compliance, as well as to entities they control. The amendments in the instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and their exceptions would operate in practice if a developer is prohibited in the future.
Since the scheme was launched in 2023, technical drafting issues and ambiguities have been identified. The purpose of the instrument is to address those issues, so that protections for residents and purchasers of property work as intended if prohibitions are needed.
First, the instrument will remove an ambiguity in the 2023 regulations. If a developer were to be prohibited, that developer should not be able to make building control applications, but the original regulations did not spell that out explicitly in the list of prohibited matters. The amendments resolve that by making clear that building control applications are included wherever the prohibitions apply. The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers.
Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. I want to understand a bit more about the operation of the prohibitions list. I note from the Department’s webpage that there are no suppliers or providers on that list. Is that because no one has fallen foul of the regulations, or because they were so inadequately drafted in the first place that it was not possible to put people on the list?
Samantha Dixon
My hon. Friend tempts me to get into a debate about the efficacy of the original—
Samantha Dixon
I will simply say that although no prohibition has been effected, that is not to say that the Government would not do so in the future—I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government’s own documentation contradicts what the Minister has just said. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Government’s SI present the draft regulations as not requiring an impact assessment, and say that these are purely minor technical changes that will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. However, when we look on the Government’s own website, it is interesting that there seem to be no firms on the prohibitions list. The Minister will be familiar with the Comer Group, for example, which was subject to a very significant fine of £7.8 million in Greenwich for what Greenwich council described as a “mutant development”, in the home constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Has the Comer Group signed up to the scheme? If not, why is it not on the prohibitions list?
Samantha Dixon
The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue; I do not know the details of that particular development in that particular constituency, but I will write to him with the details of that particular business.
Steve Barclay
I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I simply point out to the House that this development was so notable that the Housing Minister raised it in opposition—he tabled parliamentary questions on this issue and flagged it in advance of the election. Two years on, it seems odd that Ministers do not know what has happened with it.
In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, can the Minister name a single firm on the prohibitions list? If she cannot do so, given the fact that before the election the Government said they wanted to move quicker on this issue, why have they not done so?
Samantha Dixon
There are no firms on the prohibitions list. However, as I stated, the Government are prepared to use the sanctions available, should they be required in the future. I will fulfil my commitment to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the full details in due course, if he will permit me to do so.
Thirdly, the draft regulations strengthen the exception that allows normal maintenance to continue in occupied residential buildings. This exception is there to ensure that routine upkeep can carry on, and that residents are not put at risk if their freeholder or responsible entity has been prohibited. At present, there are technical issues with how the relevant building control processes are set out. The amendments clarify the procedural routes available to building control professionals, and they ensure that where the exception applies, those responsible can use either the local authority building control route or the private building control route effectively.
Fourthly, the draft regulations strengthen protections for homebuyers where a sale is already well advanced when a prohibition takes effect. As things stand, only the prohibited developer can apply for the exception needed to complete the transaction, which leaves purchasers reliant on a party that may not prioritise the application. That risks buyers being negatively affected by the prohibitions through no fault of their own. The amendments fix that issue by allowing the buyer to apply, giving homebuyers greater control and reducing the risk of avoidable delay.
Finally, the draft regulations resolve drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Some wording in the regulations created double negatives that could be read as limiting eligibility for the scheme to social housing providers, which was never the intention. The amendments remove that ambiguity. The draft regulations also remove a redundant notification requirement for developers, which served no practical purpose because planners would already rely on the official published list of prohibited developers. Taking it out simplifies the framework without affecting the planning prohibition.
In summary, these are technical but important improvements. They ensure that, if the prohibitions were ever applied, the prohibitions and exceptions would operate clearly and consistently, protect residents and homebuyers from unintended impacts and give building control bodies the necessary clarity to use the prohibitions and exceptions effectively. These amendments will make the system clearer and more robust. The intent of the scheme remains the same: to make sure that developers that built unsafe buildings take responsibility for making them safe, and, in doing so, protect leaseholders from unfair costs. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and appreciate the remarks Committee members have made already. Ensuring the safety of people’s homes is, of course, a vital part of the work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the aftermath of the tragic loss of 72 lives in the disaster that was the Grenfell Tower fire, the previous Government began that process through key pieces of legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. In many ways, the Opposition are pleased to see that work continue under this Government and the stewardship of the Minister.
Unfortunately, apparently not all parties see eye to eye on the matter. Changes to the planning system, including reforms to well intentioned safeguards such as the Building Safety Regulator, may be necessary. That is far from what Reform UK’s most senior designated spokesperson on housing said just before the recess. His comments cannot merely be described as misguided; they were insensitive to the point of being cruel and dismissive. That lamentable episode once again highlighted Reform’s inability to grasp the technicalities of many policy issues, and, critically, the inability of this one-man-band to muzzle its improperly vetted spokespeople and their shocking views.
Let me move on to the detail of the statutory instrument. The previous Government launched the responsible actors scheme in July 2023. The aim was clear and responsible: to use sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to recognise action taken by responsible developers to locate, assess, remediate or pay to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings with a height of 11 metres or more that they had developed or refurbished over the 30 years leading to April 2022, as the Minister said.
The other side of establishing the scheme was to create a responsible actors scheme prohibitions list, and I note the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire. The explanatory memorandum says that the Department
“will continue to monitor and publish data”
on that, but it appears that there is no data, so I would welcome it if the Minister copied me into her response to my right hon. Friend. The responsible actors scheme prohibitions list contains any eligible developer that is invited the scheme but declines to join, or that has its membership revoked for non-compliance with its conditions.
As we have heard, the changes the Government seek to make through these specific regulations are purely technical, and we will not divide the Committee on them. However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the wider issue of building safety. As Committee members will know, the Building Safety Act’s leasehold protections and developer remediation contract do not apply to, and remediation orders and remediation contribution orders cannot be used for, buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, leaseholders could be held liable for all or part of the costs associated with remediating fire safety defects, such as cladding. The Government have said that
“the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.]
In July 2025, they also said that they had investigated all buildings under 11 metres that had been brought to their attention since 2022, and explained that the vast majority had not required cladding remediation works and that lower-cost mitigation measures had often addressed the fire risks. However, that came alongside a promise to
“provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.”
That pledge was made in July 2025. Will the Minister update us on when further details on funding will be confirmed?
It is vital that work continues to make homes safer, including accelerating efforts to remove all dangerous cladding. I welcome the update the Secretary of State gave three weeks ago, announcing that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. However, that still leaves too many buildings coated in unsafe material; whether 100% or 9% are left, any home coated in dangerous cladding is a home too many. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am forced to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington—it does not come easily—about the Reform party spokesperson. He was not just a junior member of the Reform party but its official housing spokesperson, and his commentary on the Grenfell disaster and on the measures—for which there is cross-party support across the House—that must necessarily be taken to improve building regulation—
Gideon Amos
It is relevant because the regulations address the Grenfell tragedy. It is worth placing on record that the Reform spokesperson’s comment that,
“everyone dies in the end”,
is a totally unacceptable and monstrous response to the building safety tragedy and emergency that we face.
The statutory instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the building safety regime. The Liberal Democrats support those changes, which will ensure that the system functions as intended. We must never let a tragedy like Grenfell happen again; all parties should agree on that. However, the SI sits within a wider framework that is still somewhat lacking. There remains a concerning mismatch between the Building Safety Act and the PAS 9980 fire safety standard. That mismatch risks leaving serious defects unaddressed and standards must be aligned to ensure that all building safety risks are properly identified and remediated.
We are also concerned that the building safety levy will not provide sufficient funding for remediation and to support the sector as a whole, particularly the social housing sector. Too many leaseholders therefore remain exposed to costs that they should not have to bear. The Government must ensure that all leaseholders are protected from remediation costs, not just leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres in height. Although we support the statutory instrument, much more needs to be done to ensure that the building safety system works effectively and delivers safe homes for all.
Steve Barclay
I rise because I listened carefully to the Minister and there was an inherent contradiction in her opening remarks. The legislation was presented as minor, technical and not significant—in fact so insignificant that it has no impact assessment, as is referred to in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum. Yet it states in paragraph 5.3 that the legislation deals with
“developers who refuse to remediate life-critical fire safety defects”,
so we are talking about a hugely significant issue, on which many hon. Members in the Labour party have, post-Grenfell, quite rightly campaigned. It is an issue through which many home owners have been left in limbo.
One would have thought that legislation introduced to the House on that important issue, legislation which can remediate life-critical fire safety defects, would be significant, particularly when paragraph 5.6 goes on to state that the consequences for non-compliance with the legislation are severe because the regulations prevent a developer from completing other major developments. That is a very significant tool to ensure that critical fire safety issues are addressed and that those developers who behave irresponsibly can be held to account. I would again expect there to be agreement across the House on that. Labour Members have no doubt campaigned for such developers to be held to account, and that is in the SI: there is a clear lever with which developers who have not taken action on critical fire safety issues can be, in essence, stopped from selling their future developments. That is what the legislation is all about.
A third piece of evidence is the manifesto on which Labour Members stood. In the general election campaign, Labour said it wanted to “take decisive action” on this issue. What better opportunity for taking decisive action than introducing legislation to the House? Yet the Minister does not even seem to comply with paragraph 10.1— I have not seen any notes from officials to help her out either—which states that the Department should already be publishing data on progress. We are almost two years into their Administration and, as I pointed out, no less than the Housing Minister himself tabled parliamentary questions on this issue.
The Housing Minister has a burning constituency issue with a controversial developer in his own constituency that, in January of last year, was subjected to a fine of some £7.8 million by the Planning Inspectorate. Is it not odd that we cannot get any information on any firms that have been put on the prohibitions list in the last two years, including the one that was apparently connected to a “mutant development” in the Housing Minister’s own constituency?
Justin Madders
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Housing Minister would have to recuse himself of any involvement in a matter involving his own constituency.
Steve Barclay
Of course, but I am sure that he, as a constituency MP, would diligently lobby his colleagues in the appropriate way to take action. I would also think that the Housing team as a whole would share his view that where a developer in the constituency that he represents has behaved in a way that has led to a £7.8 million fine, that might be within scope of the decisive action talked about in the Labour manifesto.
What I find remarkable is that the Minister does not seem to know. She has come to the Committee today to present legislation, and when she answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, I did not hear her mention a single firm that was on the prohibitions list. I therefore followed up with a specific question, to try to help her out. I asked about the Comer Group because that is one of the most high profile ones; it was raised before the last election by her own colleague, and she does not even know about the Housing Minister’s own concern.
We are being told today that this is an opportunity to take action against developers who have failed to do the right thing on critical fire safety issues, yet two years in the Minister cannot update the House on any decisive action that has been taken. The Department is saying publicly that it publishes regular data and we are here debating the legislation today and colleagues are being asked to vote on it. Again, there is nothing in this legislation that I disagree with. Cancelling out a double negative and giving a bit of clarity in the language is all fine and well, but what a wasted opportunity!
Why is the Minister presenting legislation without knowing the basic facts, such as how many developers have been put on the prohibitions list? She has had time for her officials to give her a note. I hope that when she sums up the debate we will get the number of firms on the prohibitions list and specifically whether the Comer Group is on it. The officials have their laptops open. I am sure they can send an email to the Department—
The Chair
Order. It is not fair to go on about the officials; the right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister.
Samantha Dixon
I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, for their constructive and important points today. I can reassure Members that there is considerable work going on in this area.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has misunderstood; I will be generous. The purpose of the regulations when they were initially introduced was to encourage all eligible developers to sign up to the scheme. They did so, which is why none are on the prohibited list. I hope that clarifies for him why there is nothing on the prohibited list. The developers work with the Department. Indeed, last month the Secretary of State and I met developers, the Building Safety Regulator and freeholders to discuss the developer remediation contract. We hold developers to account for their remediation progress, including with a dedicated caseworker team, and we scrutinise detailed quarterly data returns. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, a full impact assessment was published alongside the original regulations. The regulations in front of us today tidy up what were, to be charitable, quickly drawn-up regulations that need to be amended so that they work effectively and appropriately.
I thank the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their remarks. The Government plan to bring forward a remediation Bill when parliamentary time allows. More details will come forward at that point.
In closing, the regulations make important technical amendments to the 2023 regulations. They remove drafting ambiguities, clarify how the prohibitions operate in practice, and make sure key exceptions, whether for emergency repairs, routine maintenance or home purchases, work as they were intended to, to protect residents and leaseholders. The amendments do not change the requirements on developers to remediate.
Question put and agreed to.
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Housing
Road Safety of Horses and Riders
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
Statutory Menstrual Leave
(1 day, 5 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
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Please let me thank Michelle, who is sitting in the Public Gallery with her daughter, for creating the petition that has brought us to the debate today. I am honoured to be leading on this issue. Some may ask why a man is leading a debate on women’s health. They may think that endometriosis and adenomyosis are somewhat awkward to speak about in public and that such women’s issues should be reserved for conversations behind closed doors, out of earshot of embarrassed male peers, but that is exactly why we are here today—because women’s health is not just a women’s issue. It is a workplace issue, an economic issue and, importantly, an equality issue.
Endometriosis and adenomyosis are conditions that cause chronic pain as a result of the excess growth of tissue similar to the lining of the womb in areas outside the womb. That results in a range of symptoms, from inflammation to severe pain, fatigue and in some cases infertility. These can be cyclical conditions, with some women feeling disabled for one week a month. Conversely, others experience such pain almost constantly. In the UK, 1.5 million women suffer from endometriosis, and 40% of them suffer additionally with adenomyosis. Both conditions have significant impacts on educational engagement and workplace participation, productivity and progression. Combined, they cost the UK economy more than £8 billion a year. That includes health costs and, of course, loss of work.
However, it is crucial to understand that the loss of time in the workplace has not just economic ramifications. Not being able to go to work can impact one’s self-esteem and individual identity. Twenty-three per cent of women have taken time off work because of period health issues, and one in six with endometriosis leaves the workplace entirely, because of their condition. Even following surgery, many women feel pressured to return to work before they have fully recovered. Despite all the impacts, only one in 10 women believes that her employer provides support for menstruation and menstrual health.
Even receiving a diagnosis of endometriosis in the first place is frustratingly difficult, with the average waiting time being nine years and four months. In half of cases, patients report their symptoms to the GP 10 times or more, and 52% of patients end up visiting A&E at least once.
My first awareness of endometriosis was through my wife, Leah, who lived with the condition from the age of 12 to her 30s. For Leah, obtaining a diagnosis was a long, exhausting and frustrating process. She was told numerous times to simply get on with it or to go and take a paracetamol. Like so many others, she found that her pain and struggle were constantly and continuously dismissed as heavy periods. But endometriosis meant that, as a young adult, Leah had to miss out on school. She lived 12 miles away and could not get home in time if she was having a heavy episode. For fear of embarrassment, she simply chose not to go to school, heavily impacting her education at the time.
Throughout her teens, later in her 20s and even after having two children, Leah suffered the debilitating impact of endometriosis. She would often be close to fainting with the pain, but suffered in silence. Eventually we found a GP who was prepared to do something about it, and Leah was referred to a specialist. Following several procedures, her issues with endometriosis subsided. However, that is not to say that it was straightforward: unfortunately, following a partial hysterectomy, Leah suffered a significant haemorrhage at home, and it was only due to emergency surgery at our local hospital that she survived. Even after diagnosis, there are risks with treatment. Endometriosis has to be recognised as a significant and complex condition. My wife was failed by a system that lacked, and still lacks, a full understanding of the symptoms of endometriosis, and by a culture that overlooks how menstrual health can dominate and affect daily life.
The Department for Work and Pensions “Keep Britain Working” initiative has been crucial in recognising the impact of health on people’s working lives. However, as many colleagues will agree, we have so much more to do. We must include menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis, in both existing and future agendas, reaffirming the importance of women’s health in the workplace. To do so, we must challenge the related stigma and reflect on policy.
To challenge the stigma, we must strive to understand that endometriosis and adenomyosis are systemic, chronic health conditions that can derail somebody’s life. The lack of awareness of that fact, combined with a taboo surrounding menstrual health, accentuates the suffering of patients, making them feel as though they have nowhere to turn and no shoulder to lean on. With other conditions that affect a similar number of women, such as type 2 diabetes, no such taboo or silence exists. There is a positive acceptance and understanding of the difficulties faced by those with type 2 diabetes—and rightly so. We must replicate that acceptance and understanding in our attitude towards menstrual health.
Following conversations with Endometriosis UK, I support the expansion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme and the national workplace endometriosis and adenomyosis pledge, which allow businesses to commit to employer action plans that promote open dialogue, training and understanding of these health issues. Incorporating seemingly little things—such as toilet access, break rotations or even the size ranges of uniforms —into a national framework of practical workplace adjustments can greatly improve the workplace experience of menstrual health, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. As Dr Jasmine Hearn and her colleagues at Manchester Metropolitan University highlight, improving awareness and tackling stigma in this way are key to ensuring justice for women with menstrual health concerns. However, as stated earlier, only one in 10 women believe that their organisation provides support for menstruation and menstrual health conditions. We must increase that number dramatically, and the promotion of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme is a powerful means to do so.
However, a change in culture alone is not enough; weusb need concrete policy to ensure that workplace accommodation is legally binding. This is where statutory menstrual leave could play a vital role. The Employment Rights Act 2025 ensures that large employers must publish gender equality action plans—a great step in the right direction—but it stops short of directly mentioning reproductive or menstrual health. The Act has made significant progress in supporting menopausal health in the workplace, but we must now expand this to menstrual health more broadly, including endometriosis and adenomyosis. An option would be to give those diagnosed a legal entitlement like that in Portugal, where up to three days of leave per month is permitted. Here, a diagnosis would allow women the flexibility and legal right to have time off work when they are suffering most.
It is important, however, to recognise that endometriosis, adenomyosis and menstrual healthcare are vastly nuanced. A single catch-all policy to address the workplace experience could risk overlooking such complexity with menstrual and reproductive health. We must also recognise that getting a diagnosis in the first place is still a major issue with endometriosis and adenomyosis. Again, the average diagnosis takes nine years and four months, meaning that only 15% of those with endometriosis symptoms have the formal diagnosis that would allow them access to such statutory menstrual leave.
For statutory menstrual leave to work as the petition intends, we must match it with significant improvements in early intervention, diagnosis and GP training on symptoms. This debate marks an opportunity to help ensure that the impact of these conditions on women’s health is no longer ignored. There is an argument for statutory menstrual leave, and for it to sit alongside wider measures that foster awareness and an understanding mindset. We must also challenge the stigma around women’s health by breaking taboos and championing justice for those who, all too often, suffer in silence.
Michelle told me that the petition is not about her; it is about her daughter and all those who will have to battle endometriosis and adenomyosis in the future. By challenging the stigma and reflecting on policy, we can champion the employment rights of those with menstrual and reproductive health complications today and in the future, effecting transformative changes to many people’s lives. I thank everybody for attending this debate, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for speaking with such compassion and insight, and for sharing Leah’s journey—one I am afraid many will recognise. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, which is launching an inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace on 21 April, and I invite colleagues from across the House to attend the event that will be held. We want to hear directly from women and employers about their experiences, including what is or is not working, and about what has to change if we are to better support women to remain in the workplace.
As we have heard, Endometriosis UK operates an endo-friendly employer scheme with certification. Last November, my office signed up to that scheme, which offers guidance and support to run an endo-friendly workplace. I also wrote to my local councils and chamber of commerce to invite them to do the same. I ask all Members to consider signing up and leading by example in their own communities.
Too many women have had their pain dismissed as normal, struggled silently at work or had their careers derailed because a workplace simply was not designed with their health in mind. As a result, one in six women with endometriosis has ended up leaving the workplace—an entirely unacceptable and largely avoidable situation.
It was being elected to this place that made me persist in seeking support for my symptoms, which limited my ability to fully participate in my responsibilities as a parliamentarian—the fatigue and the menstrual flooding, and the constant worrying and planning about what I was wearing and where I would be at any given time. As it turned out, I have adenomyosis, which was discovered only at the ripe old age of 49, as I come to the end of my reproductive life. So I understand the stress, pain and worry that affect millions of women in this country today.
Menstrual leave has gathered support at just the right time, as many of the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have just come into force. We recognise that the workplace needs to change and that women should not be disadvantaged due to health conditions. The women’s health strategy refresh in England and phase 2 of the Scottish women’s health plan present opportunities to correct the trend that has led to endometriosis and menstrual health being under-researched, undertreated and under-recognised, and diagnosis wait times increasing to a decade or more for some women. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that endometriosis waiting times will be the utmost priority in the women’s health strategy refresh.
Although endometriosis affects around one in 10 women, it does not affect everyone in the same way. Some need intermittent time off during flare-ups; others, especially when properly supported, can work consistently, but need flexibility, reasonable adjustments and job security if their symptoms worsen. Prior to this debate, I looked into other countries that have menstrual leave. What that means in practice varies considerably. Vietnam offers a half-hour paid break every day during menstruation; Spain gives up to five days of paid leave for severe menstrual pain, subject to a doctor’s approval; and Portugal allows workers suffering severe and disabling menstrual pain to take up to three consecutive days of paid leave, dependent on the employee providing a medical note confirming incapacitating pain due to endometriosis or adenomyosis.
Legislation that provides for menstrual health is not necessarily a silver bullet, particularly when it relies upon a diagnosis. That would be the opposite of progress. Women with endometriosis do not need a one-size-fits-all policy; they need flexibility, fairness and protection. Too many workplaces automatically trigger action once someone hits an arbitrary number of absences, which is deeply discriminatory. Absence management systems need to change to recognise the chronic and episodic nature of conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis, and the accompanying mental physical fatigue from living with persistent pain.
Critically, employees need endometriosis to be treated for what it is: a long-term, whole-body health condition, not a series of isolated sick days. Menstrual leave can be an essential part of the support package, but building stronger rights to flexible work, reasonable adjustments and protection from workplace penalisation is central to any solution. To improve outcomes for women with endometriosis, we need answers that recognise the reality of the condition and help women to stay in work, progress in work and be treated with dignity at work.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to stand with the 149 women in Sherwood Forest and the 109,000 people in total who signed this petition.
Painful periods are often dismissed as something that women should simply put up with—an inconvenience that is not that bad and happens only once a month—but for thousands of women across the UK, that could not be further from the truth. Every day, women live with chronic pain and exhaustion caused by conditions such as endometriosis. While the petition focuses on endometriosis and adenomyosis, it is important that we also include other, often overlooked conditions that cause severe menstrual symptoms, such as polycystic ovary syndrome. Around one in eight women in the UK have PCOS, and one in 10 have endometriosis. Some, like me, live with both.
Introducing menstrual leave in the UK would be life-changing for so many women. It would allow them to prioritise their health without fear of losing income or facing repercussions at work. Just as importantly, it would send a clear message to employers that women’s health must be taken seriously.
The reality is that women are still not equal in the workplace. They are expected to work through intense pain and fatigue, and remain just as productive, regardless of how unwell they are. Many women worry about the consequences of taking too much sick leave, including lost pay and being penalised or viewed negatively at work. By enshrining menstrual leave in law, we can ensure that employers are unable to penalise women for managing long-term health conditions. It would also create an opportunity to improve awareness and understanding of the real impact that conditions like endometriosis and PCOS have on people’s lives. While symptoms vary, and some women may experience few or none, others suffer severe, debilitating pain that affects their ability to work, study and live their daily lives. For example, PCOS can involve fatigue, pain, irregular cycles and significant mental health impacts, affecting the ability to work.
That was the reality for me: passing out at sixth-form college in the toilets on a regular basis, experiencing extreme pain to the point where I could not even stand up, suffering migraines, sickness and vomiting, and doing my GCSEs when I could barely see out of my eyes. PCOS and similar conditions are chronic and multi-system, meaning that they do not affect just one part of the body or happen for a short period; they are lifelong conditions that require ongoing management and support, yet they are rarely recognised in workplace support frameworks.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced the menopause action plan. I ask the Minister to go further and introduce a menstruation action plan so that workplaces can start to reflect better the lives of women and the range of conditions they face, and ensure an understanding of the effect of the pain and suffering. Portugal and Spain already have such policies; the UK should too.
Another crucial part of this debate is diagnosis. Menstrual leave alone will not fully support women if it can take years for them to receive an accurate diagnosis. I had to wait over 18 years for my diagnosis, all while trying to manage the symptoms by myself. GPs told me to take paracetamol and put a hot water bottle on my stomach, when I could not even stand up. A diagnosis cannot solve everything, but it unlocks access to the right treatments, and gives women the evidence they need to request reasonable adjustments in the workplace. It gives women an opportunity to do what is right for themselves. Until women’s pain is taken seriously—medically and professionally —true equality at work will remain out of reach for so many.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I declare an interest: I have adenomyosis. It took more than 30 years for it to be diagnosed. The average diagnosis time is nine years and four months. For ethnically diverse communities, it is over 11 years.
My story is not unusual. From the age of 14, I repeatedly went to the GP saying, “This isn’t normal.” That is like the 47% of sufferers who visited their GP more than 10 times before a diagnosis, while 70% visited more than five times. We all know what they were told: “You’re making a fuss about nothing”, “It’s normal”, and as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), “All you need is a hot water bottle and some painkillers.”
Like so many other young women—80% of them—I was put on the contraceptive pill before any further investigation, and well before I was sexually active. This continued for many years. I once convinced a doctor that the pain was so bad that I should have some kind of exploratory surgery, so they did exploratory surgery looking for endometriosis. They did not look for adenomyosis. After that, I really was told that I was making it up, because they could not find anything.
When I gave birth to my first child, I was in labour for 30 hours. A midwife at the other end of the phone kept saying to my husband, “If she’s able to nap, she’s clearly not having contractions.” I could nap during contractions because I had spent more than 30 years having to sleep with adenomyosis. I learned to have a very high pain tolerance. That baby was delivered in A&E because we got to the hospital so late. Even after being able to describe the pain of my periods being worse than the pain of contractions, not least because they were continuous and did not go away and come back like contractions, I was told that I was exaggerating and that it could not possibly be that bad. They told me that there was nothing they could do other than keep me on the contraceptive pill, which seemed to do nothing.
It was not until I got to the other end with my reproductive health, when I had to go for several scans for menopause ahead of getting treatment for perimenopause, that the scanner said to me, “Oh, you have adenomyosis. That must be really painful,” as an offhand comment. I was bowled over. I said, “What is that? I’ve never even heard of it.” I had heard of endometriosis, but I had no idea what adenomyosis was. She said, “Oh, it’s similar, but it’s growing in your muscle lining.” I could not believe it; I was shocked that from the beginning to the end of my reproductive years—all those years of pain—I never once got a proper diagnosis.
How did that impact my working career? I used to wish my period would start on a weekend, so that I would not have to miss work—I can see some nodding heads. I used to organise my work tasks around my expected period: I would do all the work that took concentration on days I knew would be good days, so that on the bad days I did not have to be productive. I missed about a day of work a month, which used to terrify me at the beginning of my career. I did not feel that I could talk to my bosses about it—I did not have the words to do so—and I had doubts from those doctors telling me that it was not as bad as I thought.
I also want to share April’s story. She is only 24 and she has been going through this for the past 10 years. Her periods were so painful that she vomited. It is like that for many of us: doctors would say, “Take a paracetamol,” and I would say, “That’s great, but I can’t keep it down. I will literally vomit it back up.” April had a Mirena intrauterine device fitted for her symptoms, but she wanted to get it removed. I was shocked by this story: she was told that the strings of her IUD had been cut too short to remove without surgery. When April asked why that was the case she was told:
“We cut the strings short for our younger patients, because we don’t want their boyfriends to find sex with them uncomfortable.”
April had to undergo surgery under general anaesthesia to remove her IUD. She says that, at every stage,
“A decision about my own body—my contraception, my ability to access the removal of my IUD—was shaped around the comfort of a hypothetical male partner.”
She was single at the time.
That is what we are all put through. At no point were any of us told that painful periods are not normal—I am not talking about discomfort; I am talking about pain—even though we know that to be the case. Each and every one of us should know that from the start. This relates to the fact that women’s health information is being shadow-banned online. Over the past year, 95% of women’s health educators were targeted for shadow-banning. That means that people who are trying to get this kind of health information out there are having their posts either blocked or downgraded because of their content. I do not mean to be rude, but that does not seem to happen to posts about erectile dysfunction.
Educators are told by big tech that it has been quietly restricting or hiding women’s health content that contains educational terms like “periods”, “menopause”, “vagina” and “endometriosis” under the guise of safety or because those terms are too sexualised. How are we supposed to create an environment in which not only we as women but our bosses, colleagues and partners, who might be male, all understand that painful periods are not normal, and that the pain is real?
We are seeing improvements in these areas, and I know that we are all looking forward to the women’s health strategy, which many of us have had long conversations about with the Ministers involved. We hope that it will bring about further real progress, but right now, I have a 15-year-old daughter who has all the same symptoms that I had, with all the same pain. I have told her all my tricks, including the use of irritable bowel syndrome medication to reduce some of the cramping—if people in the Public Gallery do not know about that one, it works really well—but our GP says that she is too young to start having such discussions. She is doing her mock GCSE exams this week. I wish her the best of luck, because she has studied really hard, but she is terrified that she will get her period this week and it will mess up those mock GCSEs.
I have given just a few examples; I know that women in the Public Gallery could give many more. We hear the same story over and over, and it all stems from this fallacy that periods are meant to be painful. Painful periods are not normal and we need to repeat that to every woman we know, including every female team member we know and every GP or consultant we know, to make real change happen.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr Mundell, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way in which he introduced this debate, and other hon. Members for the excellent speeches that followed.
I recently met a constituent who lives in Chesser and has adenomyosis. During our meeting, she told me about the debilitating impact of the condition on her personal life and her work life, and it was a real insight for me. On some days, her pain is so severe that she struggles to walk or move around her home, even to reach the toilet. She also reminded me just how common endometriosis and adenomyosis are: given that around 10% of menstruators suffer from one of the two conditions, there could be thousands of people in Edinburgh South West who currently suffer from the regular and excruciating pain that they cause.
Although my constituent now has an employer who understands and accommodates her health needs and allows her to work from home or take leave for her condition, that has not always been the case. She recounted the degrading experience of having to explain her health issues in detail to a former employer, just for taking time off. Despite that, she was still given a written warning. It is such inconsistency among employers that motivated her to sign the petition and to meet me to ask, very politely, that I attend this debate on her behalf.
As we have already heard, up to one in six women with endometriosis have to leave the workplace due to their condition. For some women, that will be because they really cannot work due to the pain they suffer. Sadly, for other women, who can work and want to work, it may come down to a lack of accommodating workplaces. We have to be honest about that situation and say that it is discrimination.
I recognise the Government’s position that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 should ensure the flexibility that is required for women affected by these conditions to take leave or for adjustments to be made for them. However, laws are only useful if they are respected and enforced. None the less, I hope that the reforms introduced in the Employment Rights Act 2025, including statutory sick pay, will ensure that further accommodations can be made.
I hope that the Minister will give some guarantee today that the Government will look at menstrual leave schemes abroad to inform the evidence-based best practice that we need in the UK. I also hope that the Government will do what they can to support businesses or organisations that decide to introduce such practice in the interim, simply because it is the right thing to do. I must be honest and say that I had not heard of the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme before, so it would also be interesting to hear what the Government are doing to support that scheme.
The data from the schemes implemented abroad show that they are unlikely to be abused. Although the petition we are discussing today relates to the scheme in Portugal, the introduction of a similar menstrual leave policy in Spain has not led to an avalanche of sick days being taken as a result. Although I know there have been some concerns about how easy it is to access that scheme, the Spanish allowance has been used just 1,550 times. It will hardly have a significant impact on the Spanish economy, but it will be a huge benefit to the women who are able to access it.
Equally, such schemes can help employees avoid having repeatedly to justify in detail absences that they require. With the Portuguese system of requiring only one initial confirmation of diagnosis, employees will likely be spared uncomfortable and degrading conversations with superiors and work colleagues about this medical condition.
I hope the Government will look to the positive impact of those schemes abroad and build up best practice for the UK. I want to make one last point: when I spoke about this debate on my Facebook page, many women who responded said that they were keener for GPs to be better informed about the condition, and for diagnosis to happen much quicker. I could not believe it took just over nine months for a diagnosis to take place—
Dr Arthur
Nine years—apologies. It took just over nine years for a diagnosis to take place, given the pain we have heard about. We have heard in this debate about the real human impact that delay causes. That must be impacting our economy too, so I hope the Government will commit to studying the effect of these conditions on the economy, and perhaps that will justify action in this domain.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his opening remarks, and for his compassion and solidarity. He is absolutely right that every man should have a say in these issues and challenge them. As well as the fact that nearly half the global population will menstruate at some point in their lifetime, and on any given day 850 million people across the world are menstruating, we are all here because a woman somewhere had a menstrual cycle, so it is a concern for absolutely everybody.
For something so universal, menstruation remains shrouded in coded language, embarrassment and unnecessary shame. We call it “the time of month”, “the painters are in”, “my cousin has come to stay”—anything but what it actually is. We pass around tampons and pads as if they are some sort of contraband that no one should see. That evasion is not accidental: it is the product of centuries of conditioning that told women their bodies were problems to be managed in silence and shame.
Listening to my fellow hon. Friends speaking about their own experience, all I keep thinking is that, if young women had been flagged when they had painful periods, things would have been different for a lot of the conditions we are talking about, certainly in terms of the length of time to diagnosis. I am really pleased to contribute to this debate and support statutory menstrual leave, not as a radical policy but as a practical, compassionate and long-overdue step towards a fairer and healthier working society.
We already see where progress has been made and where things have been championed in this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) on the ten-minute rule Bill she introduced recently and her consistent campaigning for improved endometriosis care. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on her work as the chair of the APPG on endometriosis. All that work matters and it is making a difference.
Scotland became the first country in the world to legislate for free menstrual products, and across the UK we rightly abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021, finally ending the so-called tampon tax. Steps like those matter, but they are not the end of the journey—not by a long way. Here is the truth: we have made it cheaper to menstruate, but we have not made it safe to admit that someone is struggling because of it.
Menstrual stigma continues to socially condition people to conceal their pain, push through it and stay silent at work. The cost of that silence is not abstract; for those living with endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea, adenomyosis or premenstrual dysphoric disorder, that silence means working through debilitating pain or losing earnings when they cannot, and in some cases losing jobs altogether. Those are real conditions. They are painful and often severe, and they exist within a system where female reproductive health has been chronically under-researched, underfunded and far too often dismissed.
Kirsteen Sullivan
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does she agree that the impact on women’s mental health is rarely spoken about? Women feel ignored and dismissed, but they are living in constant pain and the anticipation of it, which just wears them down. The mental health point is rarely acknowledged but must be addressed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say that as someone who lives with endometriosis and constantly experiences that pain, thinking about what I can and cannot do, and what I will be able to manage this week or that week. I know what it is to sit in a meeting, stand through our many votes and carry on a role that demands my full presence when my body is screaming otherwise. I know from listening to other Members and so many different women speaking about it that I am far from alone.
It is not a competition of who receives more health funding, but we have to say that men have won consistently. When my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) was speaking, I looked up some figures for the amount of investment into things such as Viagra. Everyone should look at them when they can; they are shocking in comparison with what is spent on certain things in men’s and women’s health. Let us be honest about what that under-investment has cost us: endometriosis alone affects around 1.5 million people in the UK, taking an average of nearly nine years to diagnose, as we have heard. That is not a gap in the system, but a failure of the system; it is a failure rooted in a long-standing tendency to deprioritise women’s pain.
Statutory menstrual leave would allow someone to take time off when they were genuinely unable to work due to menstruation, without fear of judgment, without risking their job security and without having to lie about why they are absent. Crucially, it would also begin to normalise the conversation and to challenge the stigma rather than reinforce it, because the answer to workplace discrimination is never to remain invisible.
As we have heard, menstrual leave policies already exist across the globe: in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Zambia, Mexico and, most recently, Portugal. They are not fringe experiments, but functioning workplace policies in countries with vastly different cultures and economies. The evidence that this is workable is already there. Here at home, our Employment Rights Act has introduced major reforms, including a day one right to sick pay. Menstrual leave would sit naturally alongside those changes if we were to implement it; it is consistent with the direction of travel and is the next logical step.
The policy also offers vital protection for those who are too often overlooked, including transgender men and non-binary and gender-diverse people who menstruate. For many, disclosure of menstrual status can expose them to discrimination or worse. A clear statutory framework would provide safety, privacy and the reassurance that their needs were seen and protected by law.
There are those who argue that menstrual leave would undermine women in the workplace, and that employers would discriminate against people who menstruate when hiring. I take that concern seriously, but that argument has been made against every single piece of workplace equality legislation in history: it was made against maternity leave, it was made against equal pay, and it was made against flexible working. In every case, the answer was not to abandon the protection, but to make the legal framework strong enough to prevent the discrimination. That is what we have to do here too.
The ultimate goal is job security, wellbeing and genuine equality. Menstrual leave alone will not get us all the way there, but it is a serious, evidence-backed and compassionate step in the right direction. I urge this House to take it.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate and I congratulate the lead petitioner on securing more than 109,000 signatures on their petition. That number should stick in all of our minds, because it sends a clear signal that this issue has been ignored for far too long and that the people affected by it are exhausted by the neglect they are feeling.
One of the women affected, a constituent of mine, wrote to me ahead of this debate. She talked about how endometriosis has shaped her life through pain, exhaustion and suffering for far too long. From a young age, she knew that her symptoms were not normal, enduring irregular cycles, severe clotting, chronic pain and debilitating symptoms that were too often dismissed or ignored. She was told that she may never have children, and although she was fortunate enough to have two, she told me that her condition worsened, bringing miscarriages, severe blood loss, iron deficiency, IBS and relentless pain.
My constituent said that, time and again, she would visit the GP, hospitals and specialists, and she was often told—as we have heard many times today—to simply manage the pain. Women with endometriosis are expected to suffer in silence, while their health, careers, families and quality of life deteriorate around them. She told me that she was not asking for miracles; she was asking to be heard, to be taken seriously and to receive the care that she deserves.
My constituent’s testimony is not exceptional; it is representative, and it is backed up with data. Last year, Endometriosis UK found that the average wait time for a diagnosis has now reached nine years and four months. That has gone up significantly in the last six years. During those nine years, the condition progresses, fertility is affected, and women are forced to manage debilitating pain in workplaces, education and at home. Shockingly, 83% of respondents to Endometriosis UK’s survey were told by a healthcare practitioner prior to their diagnosis that they were making a fuss. On top of that, women wait an average three and a half years after first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help at all, largely because severe period pain has been thoroughly normalised in our society. That women wait such a long time before they get their diagnosis is simply not acceptable. We also need to think about women from ethnically diverse communities, whose average time to diagnosis is even longer, at 11 years. The House should find that inequality unacceptable.
This is not just a health crisis. Endometriosis UK estimates that the economic loss to the UK from absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is about £11 billion a year. The case for investment in women’s health and women’s support is not just moral; it is economic.
I wanted to touch on a point that Members have made multiple times about the arbitrary hit points for absence in absence management systems. When I was working in the private sector, we had a very similar system: if someone hit three absences within a defined period of time, they would go through an investigation and a disciplinary meeting—just like that. Although there may be mitigations for long-term conditions, the stress of the idea of going through an investigatory meeting because of their long-term condition adds to the cycle of women not wanting to go to their doctor or talk to professionals about what they are experiencing. They have been told for so long to just get on with it and manage the pain, and the absence management system in this sector does not help at all.
The Government’s response to the petition acknowledges the hardship that women are facing, but the action they talk about falls short. Ministers point to the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments and the Employment Rights Act, specifically on flexible working. I want to be clear that the Liberal Democrats support the right to day one flexible working, and we are glad to see these changes coming into force, we think, in April next year. Flexible working genuinely helps people to manage conditions such as endometriosis, and employers should be actively engaged in using it, but it relies on individual employers, and it cannot be a substitute for proper medical care or compensate for decades of misdiagnosis.
Before women can be properly supported in the workplace, they need to be diagnosed, and before they can be diagnosed, healthcare professionals need training. Time and resources need to go into being able to recognise and act on the symptoms. When over half of women with endometriosis are forced to attend A&E before receiving a diagnosis, we know that there is a failure in primary care, and that is adding to the pressure on our hospitals.
We need to invest in GPs and other healthcare professionals to ensure that anyone with long-term conditions such as endometriosis has access to named GPs who know their history and can provide continued support. We also need to make sure that people are actually able to receive a GP appointment and be seen when they need it; far too often, they are unable to do so.
I want the Government to commit to a new target to bring down substantially the average endometriosis diagnosis time, working towards the one year or less by 2030 target that Endometriosis UK is calling for. I also want them to put in place a proper awareness campaign and ensure that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are fully implemented across the primary care sector, with standardised referral pathways in place. The Government must also take seriously the role of mental health support, which, after years of pain and dismissal, many women will require. Such mental health support is currently severely lacking.
The petitioners and individuals who signed the petition —100,000 across the country and the many more they represent—are not asking for the impossible. They are asking to be heard, taken seriously and to receive the care that they need. I urge the Minister to match that urgency with her response today.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone for their powerful and often personal contributions today. First, I want to recognise Michelle Dewar, the tenacious campaigner behind today’s petition for menstrual relief. She is a great champion for women suffering with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and I congratulate her on securing over 100,000 signatures—not an easy task, but it showcases the strength of feeling from many on this important topic.
Endometriosis is a condition where endometrial tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes. One in 10 women of reproductive age suffer with it, making it the second most common gynaecological condition in the UK. Common symptoms include chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding, making normal activities difficult. It predominantly affects women during their reproductive years. Adenomyosis, an often overlooked condition, has similar symptoms, but is where the lining of the womb starts growing into the muscle in the wall of the womb. It is commonly diagnosed in women over the age of 30, but can also affect younger women, as we heard today. Similar to endometriosis, it affects one in 10 women, with nearly 70% of women waiting over five years to get a diagnosis.
Michelle’s own journey with endometriosis began 24 years ago, causing her to miss school every month from the age of 14. Shockingly, it was not until she was 23, nine years later, that she received a diagnosis. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, her story is far from uncommon, with many women not receiving a timely diagnosis. It takes on average eight years and 10 months from the first GP visit to get a diagnosis.
Women’s symptoms are often dismissed and normalised, leaving them to struggle on with their pain, without treatment, without understanding and without support. The lack of understanding and knowledge of what constitutes a normal period or menstrual cycle also delays women seeking help and can leave family and friends uncertain how to provide support. No woman or girl knows what a normal level of period pain is without input from others, and lack of awareness leads to her not being well equipped to advocate strongly for herself with medical practitioners. We also need to recognise that there is still embarrassment and stigma around talking about periods, which can add to the challenge of getting adequate medical care when something is not right.
Recognising the challenges women face in their engagement with the healthcare system, in 2022 the then Conservative Government published the women’s health strategy for England, a 10-year programme committed to improving women’s health. The strategy seeks to address disparities in women’s healthcare and the under-representation of women in medical research. One of the strategy’s eight priority areas is menstrual health and gynaecological conditions, including greater awareness, earlier diagnosis and better treatment of endometriosis and adenomyosis.
As we have heard many times today, all aspects of the lives of women struggling with those conditions and enduring awful pain every month are impacted. It affects their relationships, their overall wellbeing and also their careers, and such debilitating conditions impact on earnings in the long term. Office for National Statistics data published last year shows a drop in monthly earnings among women aged 25 to 54 diagnosed with endometriosis from one to five years after diagnosis, compared with the two-year period before being diagnosed with the condition. Average pay decreased each year post diagnosis, culminating in a £130 monthly reduction in the four to five years post-diagnosis period. Although it is likely that different factors contribute to this change, it is none the less worrying that there is such a statistically significant drop in earnings post diagnosis.
Prompt diagnosis of these conditions is vital and the roll-out of community diagnostic centres will help immensely. Many of my own constituents stand to benefit from the recently opened community diagnostic centre in the Belfry in Redhill, which will deliver much needed extra capacity to perform diagnostic scans. That is exactly the kind of practical measure that can help women to get answers more quickly when their symptoms and pain suggest that something is wrong.
When a woman is suffering symptoms that mean that she is unable to work, the current option available to her is to take sick leave. That option is available to any employee with any condition or illness that leaves them unable to work. It is a broad, non-discriminatory entitlement available across almost all conditions. From 6 April this year, following recent changes by this Labour Government, when a person is unable to work due to ill health, they are entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. It is also relevant to note that statutory sick pay is now available to all eligible employees, regardless of their earnings.
The current approach to statutory sick pay therefore allows any woman who requires two to three days off every month due to endometriosis or adenomyosis to take the time she needs with sick pay. For that reason, the introduction of a specific menstrual leave is unnecessary as statutory sick pay already delivers what is being asked for. Statutory sick pay is the better mechanism to use, because it does not discriminate or restrict provision to highly specific conditions. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis are just a few examples of conditions that are equally debilitating and involve regular flare-ups—so it is entirely right that they are covered too.
Dr Arthur
The hon. Lady has done a great job of outlining the changes to workers’ rights in terms of sick pay. Can she confirm that her party voted against those measures? She has explained the benefit to women with these conditions, but the hon, Lady’s party absolutely opposed those measures.
Rebecca Paul
That is absolutely right. I am explaining the current system and why we do not need an additional level of menstrual leave. What the hon Gentleman said is correct and yes, we opposed those changes.
The approach taken in Portugal has been mentioned a number of times during this debate and in the petition itself, so it is important that I address the situation. Portugal introduced a menstrual leave policy last year, which gives the right to up to three days of paid leave per month for women diagnosed with endometriosis or adenomyosis and who suffer from severe and disabling pain. However, it is important to note key differences between the Portuguese system and ours which explain the difference in approach.
First, in Portugal, the first three days of ordinary sickness absence are generally unpaid, with sickness benefit usually only starting from day four. As I have just explained, in the UK statutory sick pay now begins from the first day of illness. Portugal has created a diagnosis-specific exception within a less generous baseline sickness system. The implementation of the same policy in the UK would therefore not deliver the same kind of incremental benefit because our general sick pay framework already covers short absences from day one and does not require a sick note for only three days’ absence.
It is also important to note that the protected characteristic of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 may cover some women suffering from severe endometriosis or adenomyosis, depending on the effect that the condition has on their day-to-day activities. Where that is the case, they are protected from discrimination and their employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments can include changes such as phased returns to work, part-time working or flexible hours to support women to continue working when they are able to despite their condition.
The Conservative position is that a specific menstrual leave is not required. We are comfortable that existing sick leave provisions and discrimination protections already adequately protect women suffering with these conditions and ensure that they can take the time off they require every month. However, that does not mean that we do not think action is needed. We urge the Government to do all that they can to raise awareness of how severe these conditions can be and ensure that the NHS provides early diagnosis and treatment. We need to end the situation where women spend years in agony with no answers and support, and where employers are ignorant of how debilitating these conditions can be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening today’s debate and for bravely sharing his wife Leah’s experience of living with endometriosis. I also thank Michelle, who joins us in the Gallery, for creating the petition, sharing her story and experiences and bringing her daughter and so many other people here today to watch this debate. Finally, I thank my colleagues here who have reflected deeply on this matter, sharing their personal experiences and the experiences of their constituents and the many campaigners they have met across the country. The drive of all Members here today, and outside this Hall, makes it clear why the issue is so important for women and girls across the country and in our workplaces; clearly, we all know somebody impacted and living with various conditions that have led to a different experience at work. We want to see change and make sure that they can thrive in the workplace. That is why this debate is welcome and important.
I want to start by recognising the enormous, admirable strength of so many woman and girls living with endometriosis, adenomyosis and other menstrual conditions today, as well as the thousands of women who have come before us outside of this room. They have lived with the conditions for so long; they have not been diagnosed for many years, and it is harrowing to hear their reflections and stories from many colleagues today. I completely understand and share the determination to turn things around. I will touch on various actions that the Government have taken in the Department for Business and Trade—looking at specific workplace policies and our work with employers—and, of course, the strategic work that my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care are prioritising.
Recently, with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, I was honoured to meet with Endometriosis UK to hear the lived experiences of women and their campaigns, including with Jasmina, the director of “Dear Doctor”. For those who have not watched it, it is an incredibly powerful film that describes living with the conditions and having to navigate working through the debilitating, but invisible, pain. It was incredibly moving to watch, and I thank them for it and for their time.
Of course, the conditions did not begin this year or this century. We are listening and taking action so that we can support women and girls across the country who live with those conditions. As Members, our constituents and the petition signatories know, they can be debilitating for patients. We have heard today about the pain, fatigue and psychological impacts, which are real, significant, and often have far-reaching consequences for women’s welfare and ability to fully participate in the workplace and education. It is unacceptable that health-related issues are the leading cause of women being excluded in the workplace. Over the past six years, the number of women who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has risen by 425,000, reaching 1.48 million—close to a record high.
It is right that the Government are taking action on this issue from all sides, with our landmark Employment Rights Act making statutory sick pay more accessible and introducing equality action plans; access to work reforms in the Department for Work and Pensions through the “Keep Britain Working” programme; and our record investment in our NHS, which has seen gynaecology waiting lists fall by almost 20,000 and made transformative endometriosis medication available.
I will turn to the points that colleagues have made in this debate, and I thank them for raising them. We remain fully committed to learning from others and continue to look carefully at international best practice, which lots of colleagues have touched on today. That includes Portugal’s approach and other international examples that offer valuable insights into how to best support employees experiencing difficulties with menstrual health conditions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for mentioning the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme. We expect employers to treat staff fairly and accommodate reasonable requests for employees suffering from menstrual health conditions. Many employers, as has been mentioned, choose to provide that voluntary support to staff, and the Government continue to encourage best practice. I thank colleagues for raising the scheme with me; two Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport—have already signed up, and I will take this away for the Department for Business and Trade to consider. I thank colleagues for raising that scheme.
Turning to statutory sick pay, one of the key issues raised in the debate is ensuring that women and girls experiencing debilitating symptoms from menstrual conditions are supported and not financially punished for a condition beyond their control. Our Government’s landmark Employment Rights Act delivers that, extending statutory sick pay to employees on day one—their first day of sickness—regardless of how much they earn. No more waiting a few days and no more not being entitled to statutory sick pay if they earn a certain amount.
While it is regretful that the Opposition voted against the Employment Rights Act at every stage in Parliament, I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), welcomed our statutory sick pay introductions this month. Those will change the lives of so many people across this country—as she and colleagues in this Chamber have pointed out—because they mean that, for the first time, those with fluctuating conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis are eligible for statutory sick pay from the first day that their sickness prevents them from working. Before the 2025 Act, they were excluded from statutory sick pay unless absence lasted for four days. That was a draconian system that harmed the least well off, ignored the lived experience of thousands of women, and desperately needed reform. It is absolutely right that we have dragged that system into the 21st century.
The Act also ensured that the UK leads the way in supporting employees to work flexibly. Flexible and hybrid working arrangements are vital in ensuring that employees who require reasonable adjustments, such as those with health conditions, are supported at work and are able to contribute to our workforce. That is particularly valuable for those with fluctuating or unpredictable conditions, including endometriosis and other menstrual health conditions, making it easier to manage symptoms and attend medical appointments, and reducing sickness absences.
The Act improves employees’ ability to work flexibly by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests, provided they are reasonable. Where they cannot accept those requests, employers will be required to discuss the challenges in accommodating them with employees and to consider alternative options, and, if they cannot agree an arrangement, to explain their reasoning. A public consultation on these reforms is currently under way until 30 April, and I encourage members of the public and advocacy organisations to please make submissions and ensure that their views are taken into account.
Alongside the right to request flexible working, protections continue to be available under the Equality Act, where symptoms have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. Conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis and premenstrual disorders can meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act. Employers absolutely have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, such as flexible hours, modified duties, part-time arrangements or phased returns. Those reasonable adjustments are well established, enforceable and designed to prevent discrimination and disadvantage.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Menstrual health conditions, including endometriosis, result in an estimated cost of £11 billion a year to the UK economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that having more supportive workplaces—workplaces without stigma, where there is an understanding of the chronic nature of some of those conditions—will have a positive effect not only for the women living with those conditions but overall, for our economy?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her powerful speech during this debate. She is a tireless campaigner on this; I really look forward to working with her and the APPG on lots of these issues, and particularly on that stigma. She raises an excellent point about the role of employers in ensuring that there are supportive workplaces that can talk about health conditions that women experience, to make sure that they thrive at work. She mentioned the cost to our wider economy, and I thank her for doing that; it really recognises the significance of this issue and why we need to absolutely support those women across workplaces, and to work with employers to do that.
Turning to equality action plans, we are also working with employers to help women to thrive at work, and on how they can support women’s health much more proactively. Ahead of International Women’s Day, we were pleased to launch voluntary action plans to help those large employers address their gender pay gaps and improve support for employees experiencing menopause. As part of that announcement, we published a list of evidence-informed actions that employers can take—ones that are proven to work—and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that throughout her contribution.
Within the action plan, we are asking employers to commit to a minimum of two actions: one to address their gender pay gaps and one focused on supporting employees experiencing menopause, including those in both the perimenopausal and postmenopausal stages. Many of the recommended actions are also likely to benefit employees managing other menstrual health-related conditions, such as endometriosis, fibroids and polycystic ovary syndrome, which can significantly affect wellbeing and contribute to workplace disadvantage. It is a real opportunity for Government and business to work together to drive forward that meaningful change to improve workplace equality, and a huge step forward in supporting women’s health in the workplace.
We are also taking further action to address the barriers that menstrual health can raise in the workplace through Mariella Frostrup’s recent appointment as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador, building on her significant achievements in the past 18 months as the menopause employment ambassador. In this expanded role, she will champion women’s health across the life course, working with employers nationwide to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health conditions and highlight the vital economic contribution that women make.
Prior to my appointment as a Minister, I worked with the founder of Endometriosis UK’s Calderdale and Kirklees branch, a formidable woman named Natalie Greenwood, to connect her organisation with trade union members locally and employers and officials across the UK, to ensure that workplace policies are inclusive of women with menstrual conditions. I encourage all hon. Friends and petition signatories to take action in their constituencies so that we can all, together, work with our employers to support women in the workplace. With the right workplace support, we can unleash the full talent, creativity and potential for women across the country. That is good for women, business, our economy and our country.
Following Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review, we are taking broader action through the keep women working programme, which hon. Members have mentioned today, to help more women to stay in work. In response to that review, the Government have launched the vanguard phase, working with employers of different sectors, sizes and regions all across the country to test the practical ways of improving workplace health support. That vanguard phase will consider a range of insights through different lenses, including women’s health. We are also establishing a new workplace health intelligence unit to build that evidence base and support benchmarking. That sits alongside our £1 billion a year pathway to work programme.
Throughout this debate, colleagues have rightly touched on the problems with diagnosis and asked for an update on the women’s health strategy, which I will turn to, but I can reassure everyone across the House that their powerful contributions and the points they raised for colleagues across Government will be raised with my health colleagues. This is not an area that just sits in my Department and with employers; we are committed to it across Government.
I have heard personal stories, including from colleagues here today about women outside this room who have spent too many years seeking answers, being misdiagnosed, having symptoms minimised or being passed from service to service. The experiences highlighted in Endometriosis UK’s recent report underlines why that early-year diagnosis and consistent, compassionate care must be central to our approach. From our introduction of Jess’s rule, requiring GPs to reconsider diagnosis where symptoms persist, to the roll-out of Martha’s rule, which colleagues will be aware of, we want to ensure that women’s concerns are not dismissed.
The shadow Minister mentioned the impact that community diagnostic services can have, which is why we are expanding access to diagnostic services and rolling them out country wide for women. Last month, there were 106 centres offering out-of-hours appointments for women to get those vital tests around work and caring responsibilities, and I really welcome the work of my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.
We are also modernising how specialist care is delivered. In September, we announced our new online hospital, NHS Online, which will be unconstrained by geographical boundaries, better aligning clinical capacity with patient demand. Earlier this year, we confirmed that menstrual problems, often a sign of conditions such as endometriosis, will be the among the first nine conditions available for referral from 2027. Those details are being worked out ahead of next year’s launch.
However, we completely understand that better care also depends on better understanding and improving public and healthcare profession awareness of menstrual health conditions, to reduce stigma and ensure that symptoms are recognised rather than normalised or dismissed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) made such a powerful point around how period pains are considered to simply be painful and women and girls across the country should expect that; improving awareness is key to dealing with that. The General Medical Council has strengthened women’s health representation in training, and since last year has required UK medical graduates to pass that medical licensing assessment, to encourage better understanding of women’s health problems. That assessment includes topics on women’s health and endometriosis.
Before I conclude, I must touch on the women’s health strategy, which is really welcome. We have made strong progress turning the commitments in the last Government’s women’s health strategy into tangible action. Our renewed strategy will set out how this Government will take further steps to improve women’s health as we deliver the 10-year health plan. It will also address the gaps in the 2022 strategy, and go further to create a system that listens to women, tackles health inequalities and makes progress on conditions such as endometriosis. Renewing that strategy will help identify and remove enduring barriers to high-quality care, such as those extremely long wait lists for diagnosis, and ensure that professionals listen and respond to women’s needs. I am sure colleagues will be—and already are—engaging with my colleagues in the Health Department on that.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for leading the debate, the hon. Members in the Chamber for their powerful contributions and Michelle for her brave action that made this deeply important debate happen. I assure Members and petition signatories that I recognise the significant impact of menstrual health conditions, and I will consider all the points raised today as I continue to engage with stakeholders, with the APPG and with excellent Members across the House who are formidable in running their campaigns and raising this issue at every single opportunity—I thank them for that. We must ensure that lived experience continues to shape policy.
Paul Davies
Again, I thank Michelle. She has been referred to a number of times; without her, the debate would not be happening. I thank her for driving the petition; it has facilitated an excellent debate. It has certainly been humbling to listen to hon. Members talk about their lived experiences. I was fortunate that Leah allowed me to tell her story, and it is her story. Many Members said quite difficult things, and it very clearly demonstrates the need for change. There is no question whatsoever: the status quo is not acceptable. It is not just something that is nice to have; it is absolutely key—it is essential—to ensure that we improve women’s lives—and young girls’ lives as well, because they are going through this. This is not just about somebody in their 20s, 30s or 40s: it impacts them, obviously, but this is about some of our young people as well.
This is also very much about equality. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to the difference in men’s health research—Viagra was a good example. That is not to diminish the needs around that but, when you compare that with the work in this area, it is about equality of treatment in our healthcare systems, in the views about what we should be doing and in the workplace. We have covered that in quite great depth.
It amazes me that the taboo and stigma around menstrual health still exists; I find that beyond my comprehension. We have two daughters, and that was never the case in our house whatsoever. In fact, I was given the orders to go and get the tampons and the various products—I would be ringing from the supermarket and asking, “Which ones do you need now? Is it the blue or the black box?” We need to be having those open discussions. Men need to start talking openly about this. This is not some dirty secret; this is normal and natural, and we should celebrate it because, as hon. Members have said, none of us would be here otherwise, would we?
Diagnosis is crucial, which has been raised time and again. That is the case with so many issues, but with this one it is even more stark. I have spoken, like many Members, about cancer diagnosis; this far outstrips that issue. An average wait of nine years and four months is absolutely incredible and unacceptable. We have to change that.
Research into treatment needs to take place. Too many easy decisions are being made, saying it is about hysterectomies and so on. From what I understand, I do not believe that enough research has been taken around treatment. Sometimes, procedures that impact a woman’s life very intensely are followed when they may not be needed.
I thank Michelle again—we will have to keep thanking her, over and over. I hope that, from her perspective, this debate has helped expose some of the issues. I know the debate will continue and, as the Minister says, the messages will go to the Government. I will finish with a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central that is so powerful: periods are not painful; it is not normal. We need to put that up in blazing lights.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 732342 relating to statutory menstrual leave.
Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children
(1 day, 5 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
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition creator, Gemma Chappell, is the great-aunt of Maya Chappell, who was just two years old when she was tragically killed in September 2022 in County Durham. Maya was killed while in the care of her mother’s partner of nine weeks, Michael Daymond, who was subsequently convicted of Maya’s murder, while Maya’s mum was convicted of child cruelty and allowing her death. We are here today because of the extraordinary campaigning efforts of Gemma, her sister Rachael and other members of the family who refused to let what happened to Maya be forgotten.
Across the north-east of England, Maya’s smiling, innocent face has continued to be prominent, posing a devastating but simple question: will we as a society do everything possible to prevent a tragic death such as Maya’s from happening again? As a result, and aided by campaign support from The Northern Echo newspaper, more than 110,000 people have signed the petition asking that a new, proactive information-sharing safeguarding framework be put in place to protect at-risk children.
I would like to place on record my condolences to Maya’s family, as well as my admiration for how they are working on this issue through their grief. By telling Maya’s story in the media and in their campaign, they are encouraging others who have concerns about abuse to come forward and raise issues for investigation.
However, awareness is not the family’s sole aim. Gemma says it is time to move from expressions of sympathy to action. To spur that action, Maya’s family told me in our conversation in advance of today that they want every MP here to have a vivid idea of who Maya was. She was a loving, happy, adventurous child who enjoyed nothing more than running around the park and who loved Peppa Pig. Rachel calls her “the smiliest girl”. Maya had a notably sweet tooth, and her family remember her cheeky look as she ate two slices of cake at another child’s holy communion—and then went back for more. Maya was learning how to talk, and she had only just started speaking before she died. Her favourite words were “park”, “Peppa” and “daddy”.
As a parent, it is hard for me to comprehend the pain of losing a child, not least in such awful circumstances. Maya’s dad, James, was an important and loved part of her life. He raised concerns after seeing marks on her body, but those queries were dismissed by Maya’s mum. He was so concerned that he contacted police to ask about Daymond’s background, but Maya’s mum falsely claimed that she was not seeing him any longer, and that was accepted without corroboration.
Gemma is clear that we must not shy away from the awful realities of this case and what Maya suffered—the type of horrors suffered by the around 60 children a year who are killed by abuse or neglect. Maya was abused over a period of time; this was not a one-off event. She was abused for weeks. She was hurt. She lived in fear. Pathologists found a catalogue of injuries. In the end, Maya died as a result of being deliberately shaken and having a head injury inflicted.
The children such as Maya who are killed every year are not statistics: they are wonderful children, full of life and with their lives ahead of them. They are loved by many, but without a voice. Maya was too young to be able to alert anyone to the horror she was experiencing. It is for us in this House to be a voice for children such as Maya and to advocate for all possible steps we can take to prevent such deaths in the future.
I now come to the four specific asks in the petition, which together are being termed Maya’s law. The first ask is to
“Introduce a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme”
that would operate similarly to Clare’s law, or the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and Sarah’s law, or the child sex offender disclosure scheme, but that would be
“focused on the broader risk history of caregivers.”
The second ask is to
“Require statutory services (police, social care, health) to disclose relevant past”
information
“to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified.”
The third ask is to
“Establish multi-agency response protocols, particularly where child contact, custody, or unsupervised access is being considered.”
The fourth ask is to
“Empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family court safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.”
Thanks to the work of Gemma’s MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), these matters—particularly the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme—were subject to debate in this Chamber six months ago and received a response from the Children and Families Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from again today. That debate, and the Government’s response to the petition, highlighted that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will take key steps to strengthen safeguarding, including introducing a new information-sharing duty between agencies, which will end misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. In the six months since the last debate, the Bill has continued its passage through Parliament, and it should hopefully finally become law in the next few weeks.
The petitioner welcomes the action taken in the Bill, but they want to see a clear timeline for implementation and they emphasise that any new duties can be implemented only with improved professional training and practice. The petition’s key ask, though, remains outstanding and is not included in the Bill: strengthening the right of parents and close family members to request and to be proactively given information about the risks that other adults might pose to a child.
As part of my preparation for the debate, I had the opportunity to speak to a range of organisations working to protect children, as well as to organisations involved in existing disclosure and notification schemes, including Operation Encompass, which ensures that schools and, soon, early years education providers are notified when a child is at a home where there has been an attended incident of domestic abuse.
A child risk disclosure scheme along the lines requested in Maya’s law would be a significant undertaking. It would need to be clear about thresholds. For example, would only convictions be disclosed, or would wider intelligence about risk be too? I note that, last month, the Government announced they would create a new child cruelty register, following campaigning from the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell. Will the Minister say a little about how the Government envisage the information held in that register being disclosable and to whom? Could that serve as the first step to the wider disclosure scheme that the petition seeks?
Any disclosure scheme would also have to specify who has the right to request or receive information. It is important to note at this point the range of different family structures that safeguarding, in practice and law, must operate with. In many cases, including Maya’s, a child’s parents may be separated. In some circumstances, wider family members, such as aunts, provide important supplementary caring roles, and their involvement is a contributing factor in strengthening the safety of a child. It is important that the professionals involved have the time and curiosity to understand the different structures and dynamics of the families they are working with.
In Maya’s case, disclosure was directed towards her mother, who tragically did not ensure her safety. In the review of Maya’s death, it was recommended that agencies should have shown greater professional curiosity and follow-up when a separated father such as James shared worries about his child. Across all serious case reviews of child deaths, the failure to share information between professionals is the most common issue identified and the main area where improvement could prevent harm.
However, it has also been flagged to me that there can sometimes be risks of sharing too much information beyond professionals, depending on the relationship dynamics of a particular family. Operation Encompass notifications are limited to trained recipients of information in professional settings. Gemma’s view is that the benefits afforded by proactive sharing would outweigh such risks, and she wants any disclosures to be as full as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in his response what opportunities there are safely to increase the information available to families about the risks that children face, whether that be through a disclosure scheme or other mechanisms.
Everyone I have spoken to recognises that any new disclosure scheme would require significant resourcing in order to be implemented appropriately. I have heard consistently that resources too often do not meet demand in the current safeguarding system, with many organisations concerned that police forces do not have the capacity to meet the growing requirements on them. Can the Minister say something about the level of resources he envisages will be required to implement measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? Can he also say whether, following implementation of steps such as the unique child identifier, which may in time enable more automated sharing of information between agencies, there will be a release of resource that could then be utilised for disclosure schemes such as that sought through Maya’s law?
Maya’s family believe that a disclosure scheme would have made a big difference in their tragic case, but they know that keeping children safe also requires child-focused services that can provide proactive and independent assessment of a child’s wellbeing and safety. That is a matter not of legislative change, but of clear service standards and proper resourcing. The Government rightly highlight their commitment to expanding early support for families, including through family hubs, but can the Minister say a bit more about his assessment of the wider services that contribute to safeguarding, especially health visiting, which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has raised particular concern about? Maya did not receive the health visitor visits she should have, and such a visit could potentially have resulted in someone spotting the abuse she was being subjected to. Health visitor numbers have fallen by 43% since 2015, and some health visitors report caseloads of up to 1,000 families. One in five children does not receive their final health visitor review at age two—the age Maya was when she was killed. How do the Government plan to close that gap? Given that we know that child deaths from abuse and neglect are concentrated in the infant years, does the Minister believe that health visiting should be a priority area for investment in the forthcoming NHS workforce plan?
I will draw my speech to a close with a reflection on the emphasis by Maya’s family on the need for urgent action. It is frustrating to me—I am sure that it is to other Members as well, but it is perhaps particularly frustrating to a new Member of Parliament—that the landmark child protection legislation introduced by the Government, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we voted on for the first time in January 2025, has still not completed its passage through Parliament to become law. Although proper legislative scrutiny is of course necessary, I think it is fair to say that the public do not understand why it takes so long to pass changes in the law through this place. I think MPs and peers of all parties need to reflect on how we work here and how that impacts on the pace of change that families such as Maya’s rightly demand.
When that law is enacted, what can each of us do to ensure that its changes are implemented as quickly as possible? Perhaps the Minister can say whether an implementation timescale will be published and reported back on. How quickly can we get to the point at which further changes, including a disclosure scheme bearing Maya’s name, are possible? Her family expect action, the 110,000 signatories of this petition expect action and our constituents expect action—action to ensure that fewer children are killed by abuse and neglect, action to share more information and action to develop better safeguarding systems to protect wonderful, smiling children like Maya. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions to this important debate.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, and for setting out clearly the need for a child risk disclosure mechanism for at-risk children.
What happened to Maya Chappell was a tragedy. It was a failure across our public services that led to the death of a toddler. It should never have happened and must never happen again. I am here to speak as the constituency MP for Maya’s great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls, and her many other family members, including her father, James Chappell, who have driven this campaign and have worked so hard to get more than 110,000 signatures. This is not only their campaign: it has brought together our local community in Consett and people across County Durham and from every constituency. It is a campaign that says, “This must stop.”
We must not just learn from Maya’s death but act to protect vulnerable and at-risk children. This coming together is the tireless work of Maya’s great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls. I pay tribute to them for drawing all of us into their campaign and working with other families who have lost children through abuse to achieve that change. There are too many children to mention, but Gemma and Rachael have worked with the families of Star Hobson, Daniel Pelka, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Tony Hudgell, who survived but still bears the scars. I know the pain they have felt and are still feeling, and I commend them for their work.
The system failed Maya. Her father, James, noticed bruises and approached Durham’s First Contact service with his concerns about the mother’s new partner, Michael Daymond. He was told to contact the police, who processed the matter under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law. However, an officer simply phoned Maya’s mother, who lied and said that the relationship was over. The police closed the case without even the courtesy of a single face-to-face visit or seeing Maya. The safeguarding review explicitly called out that lack of professional curiosity.
Those failures clearly show that there is still a gap that needs to be addressed. That Maya’s case was reported under Clare’s law and Sarah’s law and there was still not a single home visit shows that there is more to be done. Both laws are police-led schemes. Sarah’s law covers only convicted child sexual offenders and Clare’s law focuses on domestic abuse against an adult partner. Neither scheme protects a child in their own right from an adult with a history of non-sexual physical abuse, neglect or coercive control. Unlike the previous two laws, Maya’s law would place a statutory duty on multiple agencies, including the police and healthcare and social care providers.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I, too, commend the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on his excellent opening speech on behalf of the petitioners. Star Hobson, who was murdered in 2020, was a constituent of mine. The findings of that case highlighted dysfunctionality in the reporting across all the safeguarding organisations that were ultimately responsible. I absolutely support Maya’s law and the recommendations in it. Does the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) agree that when safeguarding concerns are raised, all organisations should be duty bound to feed into the process in the best interests of the child?
Liz Twist
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that Gemma and Rachael have worked very closely with Star Hobson’s family to ensure that lessons are learned and action is taken. That is why there is such widespread support for this proposal.
Maya’s law would place a statutory duty across multiple agencies, including the police and healthcare and social care providers, proactively to disclose relevant risk histories to a child’s protective parent or guardian. Maya’s law could then trigger protective action based on documented patterns of concern, closing the dangerous gap where abusers hide because they do not yet have a formal criminal charge.
The death of Maya Chappell is not, sadly, an isolated incident. It is part of a devastating national pattern, which is of great concern. Across the country, 35% of child homicides—the murder of someone under 16, with their whole life ahead of them—are committed by a parent or step-parent. Those are the people a child is meant to trust the most. More than 50% of serious case reviews cite communication failures as a primary cause of child deaths. That represents a serious and persistent failure to protect children in their own homes.
In January, the Government formally responded to this petition, stating that they are
“not minded to introduce the elements of a Child Risk Disclosure Scheme requiring police to disclose information to parents and guardians”.
With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in its final stages, there will be real improvements in child protection, with multi-agency child protection teams and other measures being introduced, but there is still a flaw within the Bill. Although clause 4 does, for the first time, require professional agencies such as local authorities, education providers and NHS trusts to share information, it misses the key point in Maya’s law—it does not mandate the disclosure of any information to the protective non-abusive parent. Sharing data between agencies does nothing—did nothing—to help a father like James Chappell, who was left in the dark while his daughter was murdered.
The Minister has been very helpful over the last year, but I want to ask him some specific questions. Will he take steps beyond data sharing between professionals to guarantee the right of the protective non-abusive parent to be informed of a risk that threatens their child? Will he introduce measures to ensure that information received by professionals in all agencies is acted on consistently and swiftly, and shared with protective parents or carers, to ensure that children are protected from harm?
I hope that the Minister will continue to work so that tragedies like Maya’s murder never happen again. I know that hope is shared by the 110,000 petitioners, and by Gemma, Rachael, James and the whole community of Consett and County Durham. Our children deserve no less.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate, and my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her excellent speech. I pay tribute to the family of Maya Chappell, including her great-aunts, Gemma and Rachael, for their tireless advocacy on behalf of children up and down the country.
I have been contacted by constituents horrified by the tragic death of Maya Chappell in County Durham. Existing frameworks, which often focus on adult victims rather than child-specific risks, failed to protect Maya. There is clearly a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that we are protecting children from non-sexual physical abuse risks. The cost of inaction could not be higher. When the system fails to pick up on the risks facing a child, the most devastating consequences can follow and young lives can be lost. Maya’s death ought to compel us to do better to protect children.
In my constituency, more than 6,000 people signed the petition that led to this debate, which is the second highest number of signatures in any constituency in the country. I am grateful to them for using their voices to raise awareness of what happened to Maya and to prevent it from happening ever again. County Durham is a place with a proud tradition of strong communities that look out for each other. That has been demonstrated by the strength of feeling made clear by my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring MPs about this tragedy.
Today’s debate is an opportunity for Parliament to match that spirit with concrete action to safeguard children, not only in County Durham but across the country. That is why I am backing my constituents’ call for the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme that would be similar in structure to previous steps forward in protecting people from violent crime, such as Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but explicitly tailored to children. Such a scheme would mandate proactive information sharing among police, social services, health and other bodies about the risk of caregivers committing such awful crimes before it is too late.
Alongside more than 100,000 people across the country, this campaign is backed by the Durham police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness. Today, I join colleagues from the north-east of England and across the country in calling on the Government to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme, so that no family have to endure the heartbreak that Maya’s family have suffered, and we all do everything that we can to protect children.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue and for the petition, which has been signed by more than 110,000 people, as we have heard. That level of support reflects the simple truth that children are still at risk of falling through the cracks despite warnings being raised by family members.
At the heart of this campaign is Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl from Durham who should still be with us. However, in 2022, she was murdered by the partner of her mother. Subsequent medical investigations revealed that she had suffered a host of injuries including severe brain trauma and internal bleeding. She should have had the chance to grow up, to be safe and to be surrounded by the love, care and protection that every child deserves, but that was cruelly taken from her by someone who should have provided that very care. This tragedy occurred despite warnings from Maya’s father and concerns from other relatives. Social services and police both had pieces of the puzzle, yet nobody was able to put those pieces together.
Running through child safeguarding reviews is the fact that information is often kept in silos. Whether in the case of Victoria Climbié in 2000, Daniel Pelka in 2012 or Dwelaniyah Robinson, murdered by his mother in my constituency just days after Maya Chappell, agencies were aware of some of the dangers but were not aware that other agencies had concerns. That is the Achilles heel of child protection: it is rarely the case that nobody knows anything, rather that everyone knows a little bit. That is why Maya’s law matters. Too often, our safeguarding arrangements operate in a reactive way. We wait for a threshold to be crossed, or a pattern to become undeniable, but children do not get that time back. In safeguarding, to delay is to increase that risk.
The Government’s response to this petition acknowledges that. The response says that
“proactive information sharing…is critical”
and it points to wider reforms through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a new duty to share information and broader multi-agency changes. I welcome any step that helps agencies work together better and to protect children earlier.
The campaigners’ concern, and the concern of many of us in this place, is that those reforms still do not guarantee that risk will be proactively identified, assessed and acted upon. That is the crucial point. The Government say that the system will be better at sharing information. Maya’s family ask harder questions: better at sharing with whom, at what point, and with what urgency, when a child may already be in danger?
Maya’s campaign proposes a child risk disclosure scheme, modelled in part on the principles behind Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but focused on the broader risk history of caregivers. It calls for stronger and clearer multi-agency protocols when child contact occurs or custody is being considered, and for professionals to be mandated to raise alerts and proactively disclose a person’s relevant history of non-sexual child abuse or neglect to a child’s parent or guardian.
Any new system must be properly designed. It must make clear who makes decisions, what threshold is applied, what information is relevant, and which agency leads on these matters.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Given the experience of the Star Hobson case in my constituency, where the grandparents were instrumental, does the hon. Member agree that we need a clear flagging system of risk posed to such children, and that information should be shared not just with agencies but with key family members who are raising concerns, whether they be parents, grandparents or anyone who fulfils a guardian role?
Mary Kelly Foy
I wholeheartedly agree; that was about to be my next point. Of course, the information must be shared with the relevant agencies, and whenever concerns are brought to those agencies they must also be raised with family members. None of this is a reason to reject the principle; it is a reason to do the work properly. The Government have to act on what Maya’s family are saying. They must recognise that, while the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill may improve information sharing, that is not the same as proactively identifying risk and acting before harm occurs.
This debate is a tribute to Maya’s family. What they have done in turning unimaginable personal tragedy into a campaign to improve the lives of other children across the country reflects a level of bravery and compassion that we should all be in awe of. Having met Gemma and Rachael several times, I know that I am. But we cannot let this be the end of it. This debate alone does not protect one more child—now we need action. Never forget: Maya should still be here. The least we owe her, her family and every child like her is a system that does not just collect information but proactively uses it to keep children safe.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) from the Petitions Committee for the way in which he introduced this important debate. I also pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), my neighbour, for her work in leading this campaign.
I wish to register my support for the creation of Maya’s law. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made in his opening remarks, but we hope for a favourable response from the Minister on the four specific asks that he set out.
Maya was living in my constituency. She was just two years old. She was living in Shotton Colliery when her life was cut short. Her death was not the result of a single unforeseeable act, but the consequence of sustained abuse. During that time there were warning signs. Concerns were raised by her father and by other family members. Questions were asked, but unfortunately the safeguarding systems that are meant to protect our most vulnerable children failed to act.
Time and again, serious case reviews into child deaths tell the same story. Information exists, but it is not shared. Risks have been identified, but not escalated. Agencies are involved, but they do not always communicate or co-operate as they should. In fact, in over 50% of serious case reviews, communication failures are cited as a primary cause. As a result, children can and do fall through the gaps between the very services that are designed to keep them safe.
Maya’s law seeks to close those gaps and to move us away from a system that too often is reactive to harm and towards one that works to prevent harm. That means ensuring that information about potential risks to children is not only gathered but shared promptly between the professionals who need it, and as was stated earlier, shared with family members who raise those concerns too, so that there is a positive feedback loop and they know that the concerns they have raised have been acted upon and are not being filed away.
The proposed child risk disclosure scheme would build on existing frameworks, such as those that allow disclosures in cases of domestic abuse or known sexual offending, but it would go further. It would recognise that the danger to children does not always come from individuals who have previous convictions. Risks can arise in many forms and are often hidden in plain sight. By enabling professionals and, where appropriate, concerned family members to access and act on relevant information, Maya’s law would provide an additional layer of protection, one that is rooted in prevention and not simply in reaction.
We must also address the issue of thresholds. Too often, intervention comes only when a risk has reached a critical or even catastrophic level. Maya’s law asks us to consider whether we are waiting too long and require too much certainty before we act to protect a child. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised many of these challenges and that they are being addressed in legislation such as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Such legislation will strengthen information sharing and hopefully improve multi-agency working.
Those steps are important and welcome, but I believe that we must go further and be prepared to take every action necessary to better protect children. Maya’s law is not just a technical change; it represents a shift in approach and a recognition that safeguarding must be proactive, not reactive or passive. That responsibility must be shared, not siloed, and when concerns are raised about a child they must be taken seriously and acted upon, with clear legal duties for professionals to act on any sign of harm.
Of course, we must strike the right balance. Sharing sensitive information is not something to be done lightly, but where there is a credible risk to a child’s safety, we should be clear that protecting that child must always come first and be the priority. Children like Maya cannot advocate for themselves in the way that adults can; they rely entirely on the oversight, judgment and co-operation of the adults and institutions around them. When that system fails, the consequences are devastating.
Sadly, Maya’s story is not an isolated case, as other Members have identified. It reflects other tragedies that we have seen in recent years, each one raising the same question: could it have been prevented? Supporting Maya’s law means learning those lessons and, more importantly, acting on them. It means building a safeguarding system that is not only responsive but preventive. Above all, it means ensuring that when warning signs appear—as they often do, and as they did in this case—we act, so that we are never again left asking why more was not done.
I will finish by paying tribute, as many Members have, to Maya’s family and in particular her great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls; I am so sorry for mixing them up earlier. They are a formidable double act, and we all admire their determination in campaigning to ensure that no other family has to endure such a loss. I am certain that this campaign will continue until Maya’s law is secure. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues across this House—this is not a party political issue, because we all agree about what needs to be done—to ensure that a child risk disclosure scheme becomes a reality at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. At the start of this year, I held a debate similar to this one, also in Westminster Hall, on local authority children’s services. I did so following the appalling abuse, torture and murder of a 10-year-old Woking constituent, Sara Sharif. What happened to Sara was heartbreaking for my whole community. I think that many people back home in Woking thought that what happened was so extreme and so awful that it was a one-off case. Today I have heard that it was not. This happens far too often. The circumstances of these deaths have a common theme: time and again, the state is systematically missing warning signs, and avoiding implementing formal recommendations or suggestions from petitioners that could reduce those risks. That must change.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for dedicating much of her parliamentary career to improving child safeguarding; we all owe her a huge debt of thanks. I also thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the excellent way in which he introduced this e-petition debate. It is a very emotional debate, and he introduced it in a calm manner. There has been a huge outpouring of support for the campaign to fix child safeguarding issues, and the fact that the petition was signed by more than 110,000 people speaks volumes. The signatories are disproportionately from the north-east of England, and Labour Members present can be proud of their home region. Finally, I thank Gemma and Rachael for leading on the petition and ensuring not just that this petition is being debated in Parliament today but that this issue has been debated before. They are taking something that is hugely personally difficult for them and are trying to ensure that Maya has an amazing legacy.
The Liberal Democrats and I think the new disclosure and safeguarding mechanisms for at-risk children should be implemented. I am pleased to hear that we have cross-party consensus on this issue, but we need action. There is definitely a way that the state can share information better when a child is at risk, whether from a parent, a caregiver or someone else. It might be that the threshold to trigger full action is not met, but it is key to ensure that information is shared fully. A significant lack of information sharing was one of the reasons listed in the safeguarding report into Sara’s brutal murder. It was clearly an issue in Maya’s case, and it was also an issue in the Southport inquiry, which reported only today. It is a systemic issue.
I know I am meant to turn to my asks of the Minister towards the end of my speech, but I have to lead with this one. Some Ministers are responsible for cross-portfolio issues—the Security Minister for one. Does the Minister before us think that sharing information should be a cross-portfolio issue? Do the Government take it so seriously that they would task unblocking the issue to one Minister who could knock heads together across Departments?
I highlighted the case of Sara Sharif, which was a stark example of information sharing going horribly wrong. The day before she was murdered, social services went to visit her house. They went to visit the wrong house. They could have saved her. In court, the family talked about the concerns they had in Sara’s case. In Maya’s case, the family raised concerns about seeing suspicious bruises on Maya in the weeks before her death. She was a two-year-old girl. Several different relatives saw bruises on Maya, but when they flagged them with her mother, they were told that Maya caused them herself.
Maya attended two days of nursery but was then pulled out. The judge said it seemed clear that her mother feared staff would notice the bruises and report them. In the case of Sara Sharif, I have said that a parent or guardian should lose the right to home educate if there are concerns about safeguarding. That is absolutely key. Should parents lose the right to pull their child out of nursery if there are concerns about safeguarding? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. How can we ensure that legislation is put in place to better protect our vulnerable children?
The bruises were brushed off by the person who should have protected Maya. In Sara’s case, the judge stated that “despicable treatment” took place in “plain sight”. I heard about the lack of professional curiosity mentioned in Maya’s and Sara’s cases, and that is tragic.
A lot of Members have talked about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill making notable progress, and I am looking forward to supporting it when it finally comes back to us after being amended. The Bill is progress, but progress is not good enough when we are talking about protecting vulnerable children. It should go further and be implemented faster.
In my constituency, Ofsted reviewed Surrey county council’s children’s services just before Sara’s murder and rated it good. From what I know about child protection failings, I cannot see why it gave the council’s children’s services that rating. I have heard from special educational needs and disabilities parents who also cannot understand why the council was rated good. I am concerned about the quality of Ofsted’s investigations.
As with Surrey, the Durham Safeguarding Children Partnership commissioned a report examining the circumstances leading to Maya’s death. The report highlighted missed opportunities where agencies were meant to protect her but could have offered more support and guidance. It listed failure and missed opportunity. Durham county council’s children’s services were rated good just four months before Maya’s death. There are 66 authorities in England that are rated good. Is Ofsted good enough to protect vulnerable children if it keeps missing the warning signs?
The Minister and I have met many times to discuss child safeguarding issues. I appreciate his experience and thoughts on these issues, but we do not want to have another debate like this where other MPs raise deeply personal, traumatic things happening in their constituencies when the state saw warning signs but did not take them forward. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure better data protection and how we can improve Ofsted.
I think all of us support Clare’s and Sarah’s laws. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are reviewing the success and impact of those laws? Once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is eventually implemented, will the Minister agree to monitor, as a matter of urgency, how the multi-agency assessments and the registry are working? If those measures are not good enough, will the Minister agree to introduce Maya’s law?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing this debate, and other Members for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who described so movingly the circumstances leading to Maya’s death and the campaign led by her family. This important issue unites us across party lines, because it is about the safety of children and ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable members of our society. I pay tribute to the work of Maya’s family, who have called for new legislation to focus specifically on child abuse and neglect, which would seek to ensure that alarms are raised if caregivers pose a risk to children.
This petition received more than 110,000 signatures and calls for four significant changes. First, it calls for the introduction of a child risk disclosure system—CRDS—which would seek to capture a broader risk history of caregivers. Secondly, it seeks to require statutory services, including the police, social care services and health workers, to disclose relevant history to the child’s parent or legal guardian when a risk is identified. Thirdly, it seeks to establish multi-agency protocols, particularly where child contact, custody or unsupervised access are being considered. Fourthly, it seeks to empower professionals to raise safeguarding alerts and initiate family safeguarding interventions where known risks exist, even if not currently under active investigation.
Under the previous Conservative Government, several measures were introduced that provided a template for how the CRDS could work. For example, Sarah’s law was introduced in 2011, which established a child sex offender disclosure system. It allows an individual to formally ask the police whether someone who has contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences or poses a risk to the child for some other reason. In 2014, the last Government introduced Clare’s law, which established the domestic violence disclosure system, which enables the police to disclose information to a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse about their partner or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending.
The shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has highlighted that, in some cases, such as with the perpetrators who abused Tony Hudgell, there is a risk that they will finish serving their sentence but questions about how they will be supervised and monitored will remain following that. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has raised the issue of information-sharing gaps with the Government. The Government need to consider how they can best support local authorities in delivering their child protection duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the priority is to ensure that all preventable abuse is indeed prevented. Given that more than half of serious case reviews cite communication failures as a primary cause, does the Minister agree that more needs to be done before an offence is committed? It should be a priority for the Government to ensure that safeguarding is co-ordinated, and that children do not fall through the cracks of the protection system. Those who are a risk to children should be monitored and managed. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that safeguarding is prioritised? The UK Government’s actions need to support safeguarding data sharing, including at a local level, because we must not risk safeguarding becoming a postcode lottery where some areas are more at risk.
I very much hope that the Minister appreciates the sentiment of the tireless campaigners who brought this petition: that one death that could have been prevented is one death too many.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate, and for doing so in a way that builds on the important debate held in this Chamber on 14 October, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I also thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate today from across different parties and have recognised the amazing young children whose lives were tragically cut far too short.
I also want to reiterate what I said on 14 October because it underpins the whole debate: no child should ever suffer at the hands of someone who was entrusted with their care and
“no family should endure such a loss.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 94WH.]
I want to recognise Maya’s family, in particular Gemma and Rachael who I have had the privilege to meet and spend time with over the past few months. Their unwavering determination took the petition from more than 6,000 responses back in October to 110,000 when it closed in February. I am grateful to them for giving up their time to meet with not just me, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and officials from the Home Office. I am grateful for their ongoing, tireless campaign to bring about change.
Through their petition, they are calling for the creation of a child risk disclosure scheme known as Maya’s law, which would require statutory services to disclose relevant past history when a risk is identified, establish multi-agency responses with protocols, and empower professionals to raise alerts where known risks exist. Changes to deliver the goals of Maya’s law are, I believe, in train. We are taking a number of steps to further strengthen existing schemes and improve multi-agency working. I hope to set out in some detail how the Government are doing that.
At the moment, the Government are taking action to strengthen information sharing in particular in three separate but complimentary ways. First, through strengthening the child sex offender disclosure scheme, which been referenced throughout the debate; secondly, through the introduction of a child cruelty register, which was not something on the cards when we last had this debate in October; and thirdly, through introducing a new information sharing duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Those changes cover different aspects of sharing information; they are changes that will come into effect in law and some of them are new since the debate we had at the end of last year.
As referenced in the petition, Sarah’s law already allows members of the public to make an application to the police for information where they have a child protection concern, enabling the police to disclose information to those best placed to safeguard a child from harm. Although formally known as the child sex offender disclosure scheme, it extends well beyond those offences to the disclosure of any relevant information that the police hold that is necessary to protect a child. That may include previous convictions for child sexual abuse, a history of child cruelty, domestic violence or intelligence relating to violent or sexual offences. The maximum timescale for Sarah’s law applications to be completed is 28 days from start to finish unless extenuating circumstances justify an extension. Where an imminent risk of harm to a child is identified, the police must take immediate action to safeguard those at risk.
Sarah’s law does not rely solely on applications from members of the public; it also provides a framework for the police to make proactive disclosures when they believe a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult with a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, they can and will disclose that information to the person best placed to protect that child—usually a parent, carer or guardian—whether or not a Sarah’s law application has been made.
That is the current situation, which goes far beyond just cases of child sexual abuse, but in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament the Government are going further by strengthening Sarah’s law and placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance, which will be issued shortly after the passage of the Bill on Sarah’s law. In practice, that will reinforce and strengthen the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever necessary to protect a child.
In addition, the same Bill will establish a new child cruelty register. That will require adults convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of key changes in their circumstances in the same way that registered sex offenders need to at the moment. That improves the visibility of known risks and supports police to make informed decisions, including where disclosure under existing schemes, such as Sarah’s law, may be necessary to protect a child. At this point, I want to pay particular tribute to Tony Hudgell’s family for their campaigning on this specific change.
Finally, through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are addressing long-standing misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. We are introducing a new information-sharing duty and placing a clear legal obligation on police, children’s social care, health and other relevant agencies to share information to safeguard children. That responds directly to findings from, among others, the independent review of children’s social care, which I led before being elected to this House. It found that despite existing legislation there were both perceived and real barriers to sharing information between different agencies. We have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other Government Departments to ensure that the duty supports sharing across the full breadth of safeguarding or when promoting the welfare of children. That, along with the single unique identifier—which I referenced in the debate on this matter in October—will help professionals build a clearer picture of a child’s life.
Crucially, and relevant to Maya’s story, the information-sharing duty requires practitioners to share information with each other about other individuals in a child’s life where that information is relevant to safeguarding or promoting a child’s welfare. More robust information sharing will enable practitioners to act on and inform families of concerns appropriately. It also makes clear that any information that could protect a child should be shared at the earliest opportunity to prevent harm. Once the Bill is passed, I will be eager to fully involve Gemma and Rachael in the early drafts of the statutory guidance that would deliver on this commitment in the Bill. There will be an implementation plan published imminently after the Bill, and I am just as eager as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central to see that the Bill is passed soon.
I also want to underscore that there have been debates in this House about the issue of malicious allegations. These are often made and are a feature of the children’s social care system where we have complicated family circumstances and people coming forward with information that may not always be wholly accurate. With that being a large feature of some of the information that services have access to, we should note that we need to design information-sharing systems that account for those kinds of malicious allegations.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the Minister for his response and the very welcome commitment that he has made to involve the family in the development of the statutory guidance. As he alludes to, family circumstances differ significantly and the person in the family best placed to keep a child safe may or may not have parental responsibility—in some cases, it may be a grandparent, an aunt or so on. Will the Minister ensure that the statutory guidance reflects that in terms of the wider disclosure beyond just parents?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that the question for children’s social care teams and anyone involved as a statutory safeguarding partner for these children needs to be: who is around this child who loves and cares about them? That will differ significantly among children. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned a case where it was the grandparent who was a really important part of a child’s life and was missing from the picture. We need to make sure the statutory guidance reflects that among children it will often be very different.
Strengthening child protection is this Government’s absolute priority, which means acting early so that the right support is in place before harms occur. That is why we are delivering landmark reforms by overhauling children’s social care, not just through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the ways that I have highlighted, but with £2.4 billion of investment in changing our family help and child protection systems. We are also introducing multi-agency child protection teams, which will be mandated through the Bill, enhancing the child sex offender disclosure scheme and introducing the new child cruelty register. Together, those reforms put learning into action.
I hope to continue working with Gemma, Rachael and other family members who have been affected by these awful tragic stories to strengthen the implementation of these reforms, as well as others in the future. They reflect the loud call for change that this petition rightly demands. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central for opening this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. Let us honour Maya’s memory with not just words but change as soon as possible, so that no child is left unprotected, and no family unheard.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank all Members for contributing to this important and serious debate. As we can tell from the Members present, this issue has a particular north-east focus, because it was our part of the world where Maya lived and was loved, and where she was tragically killed. However, this issue is far from specific to the north-east, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), made clear when he referred to the case of Sara Sharif. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) also made that clear.
Too many children across the whole country are killed by abuse and neglect, and I really welcome the Minister’s commitment to involving the family in the development of the statutory guidance, and the recognition that, in many cases, families come in different shapes and sizes. They sometimes have different dynamics, and social workers and other agencies need to have the professional space and time to figure out who in any family is best placed to help safeguard a child. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to introduce a duty to share information between agencies, which is absolutely right and welcome. However, there will always be a family member who potentially has additional information. They will love the child as they are, and—no disrespect to any professionals involved—that is a key part of the safety picture for any individual child.
I welcome the Minister’s commitments on this issue. Let us hope that we can get this legislation passed, as well as the following statutory guidance, which will take us a step closer to Maya’s law and the progress and action that the family requires. I know that Gemma and Rachael wanted to ensure that Maya’s voice was heard in Parliament today, and I hope they feel that it has been. I thank all Members again, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for the work she has done on this issue and for her contribution today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 731497 relating to a disclosure and safeguarding mechanism for at-risk children.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?
Darren Jones
I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 32.]
Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
…What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director general of the propriety and constitution group is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
The following extract is from the statement on the Government response to the Humble Address relating to Lord Mandelson on 23 February 2026.
Matt Bishop
… I welcome comments from the Prime Minister calling for legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Mandelson, and I hope he will go even further and look at the line of succession in the royal family—I welcome those updates. My constituents, victims groups and everyone I speak to say that it is great to hear the messages, but they want to know when. Do we have any timescales for when this legislation will be brought to the House?
Darren Jones
We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 47.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
… The last time peerages were removed was in 1917, so it is not something that has been done recently.
Written Statements
Carbon Dioxide Supply
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
This statement provides an update on Government intervention in the supply of carbon dioxide.
On 26 March 2026, in response to risks to supply chains arising from the ongoing conflict in the middle east, the Government directed Ensus UK Ltd to restart production to generate a significant volume of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide will be captured and sold to the market for use in food manufacture and preservation, beverage manufacture, energy, healthcare, and other essential applications.
For several months, the Government have been in discussion with Ensus to agree a standby arrangement. Under this arrangement, Ensus is required to maintain the plant in a quiescent state, at modest cost to Government, and keeps it ready to be activated at short notice in the event of a carbon dioxide shortage, or a credible risk of one emerging.
When the Government could have stepped back and let the plant close last year, we stepped in to keep it available. This intervention illustrates the different approach taken by this Government—an active and strategic state prepared to act where it is in the national interest. While previous Governments closed Britain’s gas storage, this Government have repeatedly acted to support our resilience, from saving British Steel from collapse to securing the future of the chemical cracker at Grangemouth. The Ensus intervention is part of that same deliberate pattern.
It forms part of wider Government work to ensure the UK maintains access to critical industrial inputs during periods of global supply disruption, such as the ongoing conflict in the middle east.
The Government are also taking steps to diversify the UK’s long-term carbon dioxide supply, strengthening UK resilience and reducing exposure to future global shocks. We will work with industry to develop and deliver this long-term plan.
My Department will continue to work with industry and relevant lead Government Departments to monitor risks to supply. We will protect taxpayers’ money by operating the plant only for as long as necessary. This is why we have agreed that the plant will operate for an initial period of three months but will be subject to regular review. The Department for Business and Trade will closely monitor the associated spend, which will be reported in DBT’s accounts for 2026-27, with 2025-26 spend also disclosed in the annual report and accounts. If conditions require it, the Government will not hesitate to extend this period and will retain the ability to restart the plant for a longer period as a precautionary measure.
[HCWS1501]
Trade Union Access to the Workplace and TUPE Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government have set the country on the path of national renewal, building a Britain for all on the firm foundations of security, respect and opportunity. That means creating an economy that delivers for working people: productive, profitable and growing, and creating the best environment for business by maximising job security to raise productivity, improve skills and cut the costs of staff turnover.
The Government’s plan to make work pay will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work, delivered in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society.
Government response to the consultation “Make Work Pay: trade union right of access”
As part of this, last autumn we consulted on strengthening trade union access to the workplace. Respondents engaged extensively, and their feedback has been carefully analysed and used to inform the final statutory access framework.
The Government response published today sets out the decisions and how the right of access framework will operate in practice, ensuring it is proportionate and enables regulated and responsible union access to the workplace. This includes:
Clear requirements for written union access requests and employer responses, supported by Government-issued templates;
Defined time periods for responses, negotiation and any referrals to the Central Arbitration Committee, with flexibility for agreed extensions;
Circumstances where the CAC must refuse access and when it may be reasonable to do so, ensuring safeguards for all parties; and
A three-tier enforcement system and clear factors the CAC must consider when setting fines, such as the scale and resources of the liable party.
Consultation on draft code of practice on Trade Union Right of Access
Alongside the Government response, we are launching a consultation on a new draft code of practice on statutory trade union access. The code will provide clear, practical guidance for employers and unions on how to navigate the new framework and apply it across different types of workplaces. This is an opportunity for all interested parties to help shape this guidance before it is finalised, helping ensure that the new statutory right of access is well understood and supports smooth, effective implementation.
The consultation will run for six weeks, closing in April.
The final policy details for trade union access to workplaces will be set out in legislation through statutory instruments, which will be laid in Parliament this summer alongside the code of practice.
TUPE Call for Evidence
Today we are also launching a call for evidence on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE. The Make Work Pay plan committed to reforming the TUPE regulations. The regulations exist to support business transfers and protect staff whose job is moved to a new employer. We believe firms should be able to smoothly transfer part or all of their business or transfer service provision, and supporting a stable workforce during transitions can in turn support a competitive business environment. The TUPE regulations should be easy to understand and follow for employers and protect staff.
We intend to consider reforms based on these principles —maintaining the right level of employment rights and protections but simplifying the process for employers.
Through this call for evidence, we will gather evidence on the prevalence and experience of TUPE, including on how many employees it affects and what types of employees and employers are affected. It will also gather evidence on whether employers understand the current rules, and whether the current required steps are followed in practice. We will engage stakeholders throughout. The information gathered will support decision making on any TUPE reforms.
Next steps
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations and the further consultations planned will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1499]
Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I wish to update Parliament on a package of significant measures and a major investment to drive forward the delivery of the Industrial Strategy, strengthen the UK’s advanced manufacturing base, and ensure the country remains a leading hub for business and investment in a volatile global environment. This builds on the statement made in January, which set out measures to support scale-ups, accelerate battery innovation, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. Alongside this package, the Government will publish the latest quarterly update on delivery of the Industrial Strategy and confirm the re-appointment of Clare Barclay as Chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council for a further term.
Delivering the Industrial Strategy with support for Advanced Manufacturing
We are backing the advanced manufacturing sector with over £700 million to help UK industry move faster towards electrification, create pathways into fulfilling, skilled careers and strengthen our supply chains. This will support up to 4,200 jobs, backing local communities and putting more money in people’s pockets.
At the heart of this package is a £380 million DRIVE35 grant to support the delivery of what will be one of Europe’s largest battery gigafactories in Somerset, with a frame of 100% British steel. This project, delivered by Agratas, will strengthen the UK’s battery manufacturing capability, support growth across the automotive and battery supply chains, and reinforce the competitiveness of the UK automotive sector as it transitions to electrification. The project is expected to support up to 4,200 jobs directly and a strong local skills pipeline, including apprenticeships and training in battery manufacturing and engineering, working with local partners such as the University Centre Somerset. It will supply batteries to Jaguar Land Rover, helping to anchor future electric vehicle production in the UK. This builds on previous Government action to support Jaguar Land Rover and its supply chain following the cyber-attack, helping to protect jobs across the automotive sector.
Backing business to transition, innovate, and compete
This investment sits within a wider package to help advanced manufacturing businesses transition, innovate and compete in electric vehicle manufacturing. This includes interventions from our DRIVE35 programme:
Announcing the winners of four R&D competitions worth £90 million, backing innovation across the UK automotive and battery ecosystem and supporting UK leadership in zero emission vehicle technologies, such as a £32 million project where JLR are partnering with semiconductor firm ARM to bring auto and tech firms together to advance software-defined vehicles technologies for EVs.
Funding of £100 million to help the automotive supply chain and support automotive suppliers to transition their systems and capabilities towards EV manufacturing, focused on the west midlands and north-east of England.
The package also includes the first round of multi-year R&D support through the battery innovation programme to back next-generation battery technologies and UK supply chain capabilities, with up to £22 million awarded—matched by industry—to UK-led R&D projects. We have also opened a round 2 competition, worth £25 million, to support business-led collaborative R&D. The package will support innovation in “breakthrough” battery cell materials, including novel cathode materials and solid-state batteries. It will enable UK battery firms to secure private investment and compete globally. This funding will support the development of a circular value chain in battery materials, mining, refining and recycling, and boost our economic resilience. We have also announced £1.4 million of connected and autonomous mobility pathfinder programme grants for feasibility studies exploring autonomous freight in Teesside, Sunderland and the Port of Tyne, as well as self-driving passenger services at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, at an NHS site, at an airport, and in London, advancing safer, more efficient, automated transport.
We are also expanding the Made Smarter adoption programme, doubling our investment up to £99 million over three years, to support manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technologies, growing local ecosystems and the significant sectoral strengths that are found across the English regions. Taken together, these measures will help firms invest in new capability, adopt new technologies, and build stronger domestic supply chains in strategically important sectors.
In addition, up to £16.44 million-worth of grants will be deployed from the Made Smarter innovation programme to drive the development of scalable, industrial digital technologies, improving productivity while reducing energy and resource use. The programme is designed to help manufacturing SMEs close the UK’s digitalisation gap by connecting innovators with real-world challenges and supporting solutions that boost productivity, resilience and sustainability.
Skills and jobs
The Government are also doubling down on creating a skilled workforce fit for the future and driving forward implementation of our £182 million industrial strategy engineering skills package. This includes £47 million of adult skills funding to train up the next generation of engineers and inventors, and we will be writing to Mayors shortly to allocate this funding to strategic authorities to ensure it is aligned with local needs.
This package also includes £1.8 million to expand engineering and construction T-level provision, and £8 million in capital funding to support clean energy engineering courses at levels 4 and 5. For example, Durham University will upgrade engineering laboratories and create a new flight controls lab to expand capacity in clean energy and advanced manufacturing, while Yeovil College will transform its engineering building with specialist equipment and redesigned teaching spaces to boost high-level skills in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and defence engineering.
A new battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit has been launched, which will help meet the skills needs of Agratas’s new Somerset gigafactory. The unit will give employers flexible, targeted training to quickly build the specialist workforce needed for the UK’s growing battery sector.
Access to finance
This package also reflects a step change in public financial institution support to UK industry. The British Business Bank is increasing support for advanced manufacturing as part of our wider funding for the industrial strategy sectors. From this month, it will deploy the additional £4 billion of industrial strategy growth capital to support growth and investment, and build the ecosystem of specialist investment funds focused on industrial strategy sectors. UK Export Finance has already backed over £6.6 billion of advanced manufacturing investment over the last two years. This includes £128 million to support the export of two submarine rescue vehicle systems to the Indonesian Navy. The deal will inject over £67 million into the UK economy through British suppliers SMP Ltd and Forum Energy Technologies Ltd to manufacture these advanced vehicles in York and Bristol, safeguarding and creating jobs across the domestic manufacturing and defence industries. In the summer they will announce plans to go even further, supercharging UKEF’s ability to help UK companies tap into the power of international markets.
This package demonstrates the Government’s determination to compete for the industries of the future, strengthen resilience in critical sectors, and back investors who create skilled jobs nationwide.
[HCWS1490]
Product Safety Framework Reform: Consultations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We have launched three consultations setting out major reforms to modernise the product safety framework and review the UK’s furniture fire safety regulations. Using the powers provided by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, our proposals will strengthen protection for consumers from unsafe products and create a level playing field that supports responsible businesses. Proposals will clarify responsibilities and streamline regulations, which will create certainty and support growth and investment. At the heart of these proposals is a commitment to consolidate and modernise market surveillance and enforcement powers across product safety legislation.
The existing product safety framework has been stretched to its limit by increasingly globalised supply chains and the ever-changing way in which consumers buy products. The new framework must address the issues of today and be prepared to deal with the potential challenges of tomorrow. Modern-day products and supply chains have exposed UK consumers to new harms. We have seen serious incidents that have tragically caused death and personal injury, from fatal house fires caused by unsafe e-bike batteries exploding, to children being injured by swallowing powerful magnets marketed as toys. These incidents highlight the real risks posed by unsafe products and are why these consultations are so important.
A particular challenge has been the rise of e-commerce, which has rapidly changed the way consumers buy products and exposed regulatory gaps in today’s global supply chains. For too long, online marketplaces have made third-party sales of dangerous products too easy. As announced in the Budget 2025, we are consulting on proposals to introduce new requirements on online marketplaces and create a level playing field for UK “bricks and mortar” businesses and our high streets.
We must ensure that people can rely on the safety of products they buy and use every day, whether in the home or the workplace. The consultations set out how we will bring product safety protections up to date and ensure they work for the future.
The consultations cover proposals in the following areas:
Getting the basics right: proposals for the new framework to cover a wider scope of products, updating how a safe product will be defined and how the safety of a product can be assessed to reflect modern technology and new hazards. This will be monitored through updated and consolidated enforcement powers.
Accountability throughout the supply chain: proposals setting out the responsibilities of businesses in scope of the new framework, including online marketplaces and online sellers, and their core obligations to protect consumers from dangerous products.
A new approach to product information: proposals to allow product information to be provided more flexibly—both physically and digitally—and to move towards a “digital by default” approach to product information.
Building on the new foundations: proposals for additional tools to manage products posing greater risk of harm and paving the way for further reform of sector and product-specific regulations; and a call for evidence on how artificial intelligence-enabled products can best be regulated to balance safety and innovation.
A reformed enforcement framework: addressing duplication, overlap and inconsistent terminology, and establishing a single, coherent framework that is clearer for regulators, more predictable for businesses, and better able to respond to modern risks. It will also modernise and consolidate the UK’s market surveillance system, giving authorities clearer, more consistent powers to act quickly on unsafe or non-compliant products across all routes to market, including online.
The consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice. I encourage everyone with an interest in product safety to respond to the consultations and share their views to help deliver a safer future for all.
Alongside the two broad product safety framework consultations, we have published a third consultation to review the UK’s furniture fire safety regulations. This consultation sets out our intent to implement new furniture fire safety regulations that can be met by passing a smoulder test, which is consistent with the approach taken in much of the EU and the United States. This follows an evidence-led approach to craft a set of proposals that will maintain a high level of fire safety, while meaningfully reducing the reliance on chemical flame retardants.
These consultations will close after 12 weeks on 23 June 2026.
Alongside this package of consultations, the Government intend to introduce legislation to reform product labelling for certain products where the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—or CE marking applies. These measures follow the product safety review and the Government’s subsequent commitment to consider the most effective way to introduce digital labelling. The measures will give more flexibility to businesses over how these products are labelled, both physically and digitally. This is only the first step. The consultations build on this announcement and include proposals to provide greater flexibility in product labelling in the future.
I have placed copies of the consultations in the Library in both Houses.
[HCWS1496]
Subscription Contracts Regime: Response to Implementation Consultation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Subscription contracts play an increasingly significant role in the lives of UK consumers. Across the economy, people rely on subscription services for everything from streaming and software to meal kits, fitness, and household essentials. There are an estimated 155 million active subscriptions in the UK, representing around £26 billion of consumer spending each year. While this model brings genuine convenience for many, far too often people find themselves stuck in subscriptions they no longer want or need, or paying for contracts that automatically renewed without their full awareness. Some £1.6 billion is spent annually on unwanted subscriptions in the UK.
This Government are committed to protecting consumers and ensuring that they have clarity and control over their spending, especially during a time when household budgets are under pressure. Today we are taking an important step to deliver on that commitment by publishing the Government response to the consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime.
This marks another milestone in enhancing consumer protection and implementing measures introduced in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. These will strengthen consumer rights and help people across the UK keep more of their hard-earned money, which will save consumers an average of £14 per month for every unwanted subscription they can cancel.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and established a new regulatory framework for subscription contracts. This requires businesses to give clear pre-contract information and send regular reminders about ongoing subscriptions. Businesses must also ensure that it is straightforward for consumers to cancel, and provide online cancellation if consumers can sign up online. The Act also introduces new statutory cancellation rights, including 14-day cooling-off periods when free or discounted trials roll on to higher full price terms or when contracts of 12 months or more auto-renew.
These measures maintain and build on existing protections under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Government response to the consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime
The Government have reviewed the evidence submitted through the consultation process and will bring forward secondary legislation for the following proposals:
Cooling-off rights and refunds
If a consumer exercises their 14-day initial cooling-off right (after they sign up) or 14 day renewal cooling-off right (after trial ends or a contract renews for longer than 12 months), new return and refund rules will provide:
For returnable goods, consumers will receive a refund when goods are returned, including standard delivery costs.
For perishable and bespoke goods, they will receive a full refund if they cancel before the goods are supplied. If they cancel after the goods are supplied, the trader will be entitled to reduce the refund by the value of those goods—including all delivery costs.
Where goods are sealed for specified reasons—for example, for health protection or hygiene—and become unsealed after delivery or goods become inseparably mixed with other goods after delivery, the trader will be entitled to reduce the consumer’s refund to cover the value of these now unreturnable goods.
For service contracts, if consumers cancel during an initial or renewal cooling-off period, they will be entitled to a partial refund proportionate to the services supplied before cancellation.
For digital content contracts, consumers may waive their initial cooling-off right in return for the supply of digital content during the initial cooling-off period. If consumers cancel during the renewal cooling-off period, they will be entitled to a partial refund proportionate to the digital content supplied during the renewal period before cancellation.
Extension of the cooling-off period
If a trader is in breach of the requirement to inform a consumer about their cooling-off rights, the cooling-off period extends to 14 days after the trader corrects their breach, up to a maximum of 12 months after the original end date.
Ancillary contracts and mixed contracts
We will legislate so that if the main subscription contract is cancelled, ancillary contracts are treated in the same was as they are under the existing Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Contractual terms and auto-renewal
We will legislate to prevent contractual terms that make it disproportionately difficult for consumers to stop a subscription from auto-renewing.
Cancellation remedies for breach of duties
If traders breach statutory obligations, such as failing to send reminder notices, consumers will have clear rights to appropriate refunds. We will also introduce a list of specific breaches for which refunds will apply automatically.
Information notices
Consumers must be provided with clear information about their contract and the purpose of communications must be clear. Notices must be provided on a “durable medium” (a format that the consumer can easily access in the future) and important information must be both clear and prominent.
Charitable memberships
We recognise the vital contribution of the UK’s cultural and heritage charities, and the public benefit they provide. In response to concerns raised by the sector, the Government will exclude certain charitable cultural and heritage memberships from the new subscription regime, ensuring they are not subject to additional requirements beyond those that already apply under existing consumer law. Broadly this will exclude contracts which are between a charity and a consumer and that allow consumers to attend performances, see collections, or visit places—for example, museums, galleries, historical properties, landscapes, wildlife, performing arts—which are related to their charitable purpose.
Next steps
This new framework will empower consumers with clearer rights, fairer terms, and easier ways to manage their subscriptions. It will also support competition and growth by ensuring businesses operate on a level playing field with strong, trusted consumer protections at its core. Under the new regime, consumers will benefit from:
Clear, tailored information before they sign up to a subscription.
Reminders before a trial period ends or a 12 months-plus contract auto-renews.
Easy, straightforward cancellation routes, including online cancellation if consumers can sign up online.
A new renewal cooling-off period, allowing consumers to exit a contract within 14 days of a trial or a contract renewing for longer than 12 months-plus if they change their mind.
In a world where an increasing numbers of goods and services are sold using subscriptions, these measures will protect consumers from being trapped in unwanted subscription contracts and be better able to control how and where they spend their money. Together the measures are anticipated to provide £400 million of consumer benefits per year.
The Government will bring forward secondary legislation covering the above, when parliamentary time allows, and we expect the regime to commence in spring 2027. We will also publish guidance to support implementation.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1498]
Call for Input: New Powers to Protect UK from Acts of Adverse Economic Pressure
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
As an open trading nation, the UK thrives on its connections with the world. International trade fuels economic growth in the UK, and delivers significant benefits for businesses, workers and consumers alike. However, rising geopolitical tensions and growing uncertainty are reshaping global trade dynamics. Unfair trading practices are emerging that disrupt supply chains and distort competition, sometimes aimed at forcing changes in law or policy.
When supply chains are disrupted, it is working people who feel it first—in higher prices at the checkout, in uncertainty about their jobs, and in the disruption to the businesses and industries their communities depend on.
That is why we recognised these risks in our Trade Strategy, published last year. We are already taking action to make our economy more resilient and secure, and we work closely with allies through the G7, the World Trade Organisation and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to challenge unfair practices wherever they occur. Now we are asking whether additional powers are needed, and on Thursday 9 April we launched a call for input to consider the case for developing new powers to reinforce our ability to respond to acts of adverse economic pressure against the UK.
We are seeking to understand whether the UK Government should strengthen the UK’s economic security and resilience against acts of adverse economic pressure, and if so how, while supporting growth, competitiveness, and our international obligations. This call for input will be open for 10 weeks and will aim to gather views from a broad range of stakeholders on the opportunities, risks, and implementation considerations associated with taking new powers. This includes perspectives from businesses, industry, consumer organisations, other representative and sector bodies, as well as insights from think-tanks, academics, the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies, and overseas territories.
We welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recent inquiry into economic security and their agreement that the Government should explore new powers in this area.
To support this, my Department has published a summary of the Government’s existing powers in this area and set out the case for considering new powers, including what form such powers could take. A copy of the call for input document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.
This is about one thing: protecting working people from economic shocks they did nothing to cause. If new powers are required, we will introduce them. We will always try diplomacy first. But if that fails, families, businesses, and communities across the UK deserve to know that their Government have the tools to stand up for them. We are not changing who we are as a trading nation; we are making sure we can stay who we are, even when others play by different rules. This is what this call for input is about, and that is how we deliver growth that works for everyone.
[HCWS1491]
Our Place to Give: Growing Place-based Philanthropy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today the Government launch Our Place to Give: a plan for growing place-based philanthropy. This sets out the first steps we will take towards achieving our vision of building ambitious and long-term partnerships with philanthropists and delivering tangible and lasting impact within our communities.
This Government are focused on delivering a decade of national renewal, and we cannot achieve this change alone. A partnership model that adequately recognises the potential of philanthropy to drive positive social impact across the breadth of the UK is essential to address some of our biggest challenges.
The UK has a proud history of philanthropy, which is an integral part of the glue that binds communities together. Whether it is the donation of wealth, time, or talent, giving back creates a sense of pride and belonging.
Change starts with partnership and Our Place to Give sets out how the Government will work with local government, civil society and philanthropists to address barriers and strengthen place-based philanthropy. We are focused on two key outcomes:
For places: helping local organisations and areas with the greatest funding needs better access philanthropic investment.
For philanthropists: encouraging more high net-worth individuals to give back to communities, by making it easier to work with Government and places on opportunities to maximise place-based funding.
This represents a fundamental shift and a genuinely new approach to working together and forms one part of the Government’s impact economy agenda. We will work to foster an environment of mutual respect and trust, ensuring philanthropic voices are brought into the early stages of policy design and implementation, utilising their expertise, insight and experience to tackle some of the most pressing and challenging societal issues across this country. This includes partnering on Government priorities, including the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme and the £500 million better futures fund.
This Government want to empower philanthropists and communities to do more together. MPs are uniquely placed to champion local priorities and a toolkit has been developed to support with practical steps on how to engage with place-based philanthropy in their constituency.
The UK is one of the best countries in the world to conduct philanthropy, and we are committed to working with philanthropists and communities to drive sustained positive change across the country.
[HCWS1500]
Further Education College Condition Allocation 2026-27
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I am pleased to announce £307 million of capital funding will be allocated to further education colleges and designated institutions across England in 2026-27 to help them maintain, improve, and ensure the suitability of their estate. This is the second year of the FE college condition allocation, providing colleges with funding certainty to strategically plan and manage their estates.
FE colleges will have the discretion to prioritise how best to use this funding over a three year period, supported by spend guidance the Department has published on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-education-college-condition-allocation-2026-to-2027
This funding forms part of the £1.7 billion investment announced in the UK’s modern industrial strategy to improve the condition of FE college buildings. It is also part of the Government’s education estates strategy, published in February 2026, which set out plans for an education estate that supports opportunity for all, backed by a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal to transform schools and colleges. High quality and inspiring college buildings are essential for expanding opportunity, breaking down barriers, and ensuring clear pathways from education into skilled employment.
By investing in FE colleges, we are investing in the country’s future workforce and long-term growth.
[HCWS1495]
Improving School Food Standards in England: Consultation Launch
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I have asked my Department to consult on proposed changes to the school food standards in England.
A good meal or a nutritious breakfast can set a child up for the day, helping them to concentrate, learn, and thrive. Working alongside the Office for Health Improvements and Disparities and as part of our 10-year health plan for England, we have committed to overhaul school food standards to ensure that every child gets the good-quality food they need that gives them the best start in life.
Too many children are not getting the nutritious food they need. The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows children consume twice the recommended amount of free sugars, and most are consuming insufficient fibre. Over 10.5% of children aged 4 to 5 start school with obesity and by the end of primary school this rises to 22.2%. This is simply not good enough.
The school food standards are out of date, and that is why we are proposing to update the regulations to align with the latest nutritional guidance to reduce sugar, increase fibre and limit unhealthy foods. These are changes that respond directly to what parents, health experts, and the food sector have been telling us for years. It means increasing fibre by ensuring schools offer more wholegrains, vegetables, pulses and fruit across meals and snacks. It means reducing sugar by limiting sweetened breakfast items, desserts and drinks, and by lowering the added sugar content of everyday menu options. It means restricting foods that are higher in fat, sugar and salt, such as deep-fried items, processed meats, confectionery and savoury snacks, and ensuring these appear less often or in controlled portions. It also means doing this in a way that schools can continue to serve food that children are familiar with. For secondary schools, we propose phasing in some of these changes to give schools and caterers more time to adapt.
Improving nutritional quality must go hand in hand with ensuring that children and young people enjoy the food they are served. Our objective is not only to make school meals healthier, but to ensure they are appealing, familiar and fulfilling, so that healthier choices are enjoyed. Children’s voices will be central to this consultation. We want to hear directly from children and young people on how healthier meals can best meet their needs. To support this, the Department is working with youth organisations and representative bodies to ensure that children are engaged in age-appropriate and inclusive ways.
Schools must comply with the school food standards to make sure that children get the healthy meals they deserve, and we know that governing bodies play a central role in shaping the quality and nutritional value of school meals. These updated standards are not about making that job harder; they are about giving the whole school-food community a clear, modem framework to work to, with the support needed to make it happen. We recognise the importance of clear, nationally consistent arrangements for supporting and assuring compliance with the school food standards and are developing our wider approach. To underpin this broader compliance framework, we are setting out two targeted proposals to reinforce leadership and visibility in schools. We are proposing schools appoint a lead governor for school food and publish their food policies and menus online, which would strengthen accountability and improve compliance. Throughout this entire process, we will continue working closely with schools to identify the guidance they need to meet higher standards. We will also work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as it develops a new food strategy to ensure the food on children’s plates is good quality, accessible and affordable.
These proposals apply to England only and the consultation will run for nine weeks, closing on 12 June 2026. The consultation and the Government response will be published on www.gov.uk. We will also place a copy of the Government response in the Library of each House.
A consultation will allow the Department to capture and consider a wide range of views, about how our proposals to change policy are likely to impact schools, local authorities, parents, children, and young people. We will consider all responses to the consultation and use them to inform our proposals for better meeting the policy objectives of state funded schools.
[HCWS1494]
Student Loan Interest Rates: Academic Year 2026-27
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
On the 7 April the Government announced that we are capping the maximum interest rates on Plan 2 and Plan 3—postgraduate—student loans at 6% for the 2026-27 academic year, from the 1 September 2026 to the 31 August 2027.
This short-term protective measure removes the risk of any temporary increase in inflation causing loan balances to compound at an unsustainable rate, and will protect students and graduates from the potential of inflationary pressures due to the situation in the middle east.
Student loan interest rates are ordinarily set for each academic year by reference to the retail prices index value for the year to the preceding March. On that basis, interest rates for academic year 2026-27 would normally be determined using the outturn RPI figure for March 2026, which is due to be published on 22 April 2026.
The Government are therefore making this change ahead of student loan interest rates being confirmed for the coming 2026-27 academic year.
Under existing arrangements, borrowers on Plan 2 loans may be charged interest of up to RPI plus 3%. This maximum rate applies to borrowers in repayment earning above the upper interest rate threshold, which increased to £52,885 on 6 April 2026. For Plan 3 loans and Plan 2 students in study, a flat rate of RPI plus 3% applies to all borrowers.
Capping the maximum interest rate at 6% instead of RPI plus 3% will ensure no Plan 2 or Plan 3 borrower faces an interest rate above 6% for academic year 2026-27.
This follows changes this Government have already made to the student finance system we inherited to improve it and make it fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers. This includes increasing the repayment threshold for Plan 2 loans to £28,470 in April 2025—its first increase since 2021—and we increased it again on 6 April this year, to £29,385. We are also reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants from the 2028-29 academic year, providing students from low-income households with up to £1,000 extra support that will not need to be repaid to ensure those from the poorest families receive more support without increasing their debt.
The Government are continuing work to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers.
[HCWS1489]
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today, I am announcing the formal commencement of the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.
The setting-up date of the inquiry, as per section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005, is 13 April 2026.
The inquiry will confront one of the darkest periods in our country’s history, where the most vulnerable people were abused and let down by those meant to protect them. I am committed to delivering the truth, accountability and reform that victims and survivors deserve and expect.
On 9 December 2025, I updated the House on the publication of the draft terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs. Given the importance of getting this right, I asked the chair and panel of the inquiry to undertake a period of consultation, including with victims and survivors of these crimes, before returning their views to me for agreement on the final terms of reference.
The final terms of reference for the independent inquiry into grooming gangs were published on gov.uk on Tuesday 31 March. This upheld our previous commitment to agree terms of reference by the end of March. The interval between publication and formal commencement reflects the timing of parliamentary recess.
The terms were agreed with the chair and panel following a period of consultation. This included an online open consultation, which received over 25,000 responses, direct engagement with victims and survivors across England and Wales and engagement with parliamentarians. I would like to place on record my thanks to the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, and the panel, Zoë Billingham CBE and Eleanor Kelly CBE, for their work in leading this consultation.
The terms of reference have been shaped by the testimony, priorities and lived experience of victims and survivors and make clear that their experiences will continue to guide the inquiry’s work throughout. I would like to pay tribute to their involvement and tireless campaigning to ensure we right the wrongs of the past and ensure evil perpetrators of these crimes have nowhere to hide.
The inquiry is time-limited for three years, supported by a £65 million budget, to help ensure that justice is delivered swiftly for those who have already waited too long for answers. Its initial phase will focus on identifying priority areas for investigation, before undertaking targeted local investigations alongside a national-level review of the findings of those investigations. The criteria used to select local areas will be published by the inquiry within three months of the formal setting-up date.
The inquiry will examine systemic, institutional and individual failures, making recommendations for improvement at both national and local levels, as appropriate. The inquiry will be laser focused on grooming gangs and will explicitly examine the role ethnicity, religion and culture played in these crimes. It will seek to hold individuals, institutions and statutory services responsible to account for any failures.
With a national remit across England and Wales, the inquiry will work closely with the national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency. As set out in the terms of reference, where criminal allegations and evidence are identified by the inquiry, this will be referred to law enforcement.
The Government accepted all 12 recommendations in Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government remain fully committed to implementing these recommendations and to driving forward broader action to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse.
The Government are clear that this inquiry must deliver truth, accountability, and meaningful reform so that the injustices suffered by victims and survivors are not repeated and children are better protected in every community in future.
I recognise the long-standing interest from parliamentarians in this work. The inquiry has committed to publishing their findings regularly and I remain committed to keeping Parliament informed as the inquiry progresses.
[HCWS1492]
FIFA Men’s Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Late last year the Government consulted on proposals to make a contingent licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 for the 2026 FIFA men’s football world cup. The majority of respondents were in favour of licensing hours being relaxed for the semi-final and final stages of the tournament, with some calling on us to go further and extend hours for games in the earlier rounds of the tournament.
Having considered the consultation responses, the Government intend to proceed with a contingent licensing hours order for England and Wales to enable communities to come together at their local licensed premises to support the home nations—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—where they progress past the group stages of the tournament.
The Government have already announced a contingent order that will apply if any of the home nations reach the rounds of 32 and 16 as for the quarter finals, semi-finals and finals for matches that kick off between 8 pm and 10 pm UK time.
Having considered this further, I now wish to announce that we will also extend for round of 32 and round of 16 matches that kick off at 5 pm and 6 pm. For these matches licensing hours will be extended until 1 am the following morning, rather than 11 pm on the day of the match, allowing more time for fans to do post-match analysis and hopefully celebrate a great victory for a home nation. The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales, and will only come into effect should a home nation play in the matches.
This order will enable communities to come together to collectively support the home nations teams and celebrate their success, while also providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector at this challenging time. The order will be laid in Parliament in due course and an economic note will be published alongside it on legislation.gov.uk.
[HCWS1493]
Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 Report and Phase 2 Terms of Reference
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
On 7 April 2025, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, to be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. This inquiry was to examine the appalling events that took place at a children’s dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024.
Three young girls were tragically murdered on that day, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and many more were seriously harmed. Our thoughts remain with the families who have suffered such devastating loss, as well as those who survived the attack but live with the lasting physical and psychological impact.
The chair has today published his findings from the first phase of this inquiry, which provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the attack, and the attack itself. The inquiry examined the perpetrator’s history and interactions with a range of state systems including policing and criminal justice, education, health and social care, as well as considering the account of all those who were impacted by the attack.
The findings point to missed opportunities which could have stopped this attack from occurring. They indicate systematic failures, structural gaps, and a lack of ownership of the risk from the many agencies involved. The inquiry also highlights how agencies failed to adequately share information and take all the facts about the risk the perpetrator posed to the community into consideration, which ultimately meant that his risk was not managed effectively.
Sir Adrian has examined these issues thoroughly, and I welcome his recommendations. The Government are determined to learn the lessons identified by the inquiry and to take the necessary action to reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. I must thank the chair, his team, and all those that took part in the inquiry, for the speed, rigour and professionalism with which they have conducted their work.
The Government will consider the report and its recommendations and will respond in full later this summer. Alongside this, the Government will respond to the recommendations made by the Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson KC, in his “Lessons for Prevent” report, which examined Prevent’s role in the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess.
While the first phase of the inquiry has looked specifically at the failings in this case, it has identified wider gaps in how to address the risk from individuals who hold a fascination with extreme violence. Following consultation with the chair and those most affected by this attack, I am today publishing the terms of reference for the second phase of the Southport inquiry.
I have asked the chair in phase 2 to examine the adequacy of arrangements for identifying and managing the risk posed by individuals who are fixated with extreme violence. The inquiry will consider the role of multi-agency management, the interventions needed to reduce risk to the public, the effectiveness of laws around knives and weapons, and the extent to which the internet and social media are influencing and enabling people to carry out violent attacks.
This next phase of the inquiry will begin immediately and is expected to report in spring 2027. A copy of the terms of reference for phase 2 of the Southport inquiry will be placed in the Library of each House.
The Government will provide the inquiry with the resources it needs to complete this next phase and will fully support the chair in the discharge of his duties. We will continue to engage with those affected by the events in Southport, to ensure that their questions are answered, and their views are heard, as this next stage commences.
[HCWS1497]
UK-US Arrangement on Pharmaceuticals Pricing and Tariffs
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham.
Today I can update the House that the UK and US Governments have published the joint text of our arrangement on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs. This builds on the general terms for the UK-US economic prosperity deal announced in May 2025 and takes forward joint commitments made when the principles of the partnership were first announced in December 2025. The arrangement will improve the lives of NHS patients, support our life sciences sector and grow the economy.
Central to the partnership are the actions the Government are taking to improve and protect UK patient access to new and important medicines. More NHS patients will get improved access to life-changing new treatments because of the medicines pricing changes we have made, and the associated UK medicines spend targets set out in the arrangement. Investing in medicines helps keep people healthier for longer, reduces pressure on the health service over the longer term, and ensures that we have an NHS that is fit for the future.
The update to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold, made for the first time in two decades, has already made a direct difference for NHS patients. Two medicines have already been recommended by NICE under the new threshold, giving patients immediate access to life-changing medicines—including a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for patients with a rare form of stomach cancer who had already exhausted other options. NHS patients in England will be able to access these through the health service, thanks to the new thresholds.
In addition, the arrangement includes clarification of the US commitments on its “most favoured nation” pricing policy and support for UK patient access, including outlining expectations from the US Government that companies will continue to launch new medicines quickly in the UK.
The partnership supports our life sciences sector, which not only saves lives but creates jobs, drives investment and powers innovation across our economy. UK pharmaceuticals exports to the US—worth over £5 billion in 2024—will be subject to no additional US tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years. This includes avoiding section 232 tariffs on patented pharmaceuticals of up to 100% announced by the US on Thursday 2 April. This makes the UK the first and only country to benefit from a commitment to tariff-free access to the US pharmaceuticals market, providing certainty for UK exporters, and giving the UK sector a significant competitive advantage over other trading partners. This supports economic growth and helps protect our vital pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which in 2025 added £28.5 billion to the UK economy, employed over 50,000 people in high-skilled jobs across the country, and exported almost £21 billion in pharmaceutical products worldwide.
We have also achieved preferential terms for medical technology exports, which will be subject to no additional tariffs as a result of section 232 or section 301 investigations for at least three years—protecting over 195,000 UK jobs in the med-tech sector. The UK and US have also agreed to work together towards mutual recognition of medical device approvals—cutting red tape and supporting future innovative health technologies to reach patients on both sides of the Atlantic.
The partnership has received widespread support from the life sciences sector and will lead to greater investment in UK life sciences. It has already started generating results, such as £500 million investment in UK research and development and manufacturing in Surrey from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB, which was announced in January.
We will continue to work closely with the life sciences sector to help land investment into the UK, and deliver on our ambition for the UK to become the third most important life sciences economy by 2035, as set out in our life sciences sector plan.
The finalising of this arrangement does not introduce any further costs for HM Government beyond those set out previously. The Government will continue to assess the costs and benefits of this arrangement.
[HCWS1487]
Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments: Progress on Response
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Government published the report of the Independent Review of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance linked to earnings, and the Government’s response to its recommendations, on 25 November 2025—the review can be found on gov.uk. Today I am providing an update on progress in responding to those recommendations, including more detail on our plans to reassess cases that may have been subject to faulty guidance on the averaging of fluctuating earnings.
The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. The independent review, undertaken by Liz Sayce, showed that mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcomed the report and accepted, or partially accepted, 38 of the 40 recommendations. We have already made around half of the changes that the report recommended. Work has begun on the others, but some changes will take more time to put in place.
As part of their response, the Government committed to reassessing carer’s allowance cases that may have been affected by faulty guidance on the averaging of irregularly fluctuating earnings. This guidance, which was in place between April 2015 and September 2025, did not accurately reflect the statutory position. I am pleased to announce that the reassessment exercise will begin today, 13 April 2026. Funding of £75 million has been provided for the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29.
The Department for Work and Pensions expects to review over 200,000 cases, potentially reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for around 25,000 carers.
For the vast majority of cases, the Department has all the information it needs to reassess the case, so there will be no need for most people to do anything. The Department will contact them by SMS and letter if it needs any further information in order to conduct the reassessment.
For other, older cases, the Department may no longer hold information because GDPR rules state that personal data must be kept only for as long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For these cases, the Department will open access to a straightforward online form for people to complete. We aim to do this in late 2026, building on learned lessons from the reassessment of cases for which we already hold the relevant data. The Department will work with organisations supporting carers to encourage people who think they may have been affected to register via the online form for a reassessment.
We will also let people know once their cases have been reassessed and whether any overpayment has been reduced as a result of the reassessment.
Although the independent review covered England and Wales, at the request of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the reassessment exercise will include relevant carer’s allowance cases in Scotland, including those that were administered by the Department on behalf of Scottish Ministers between September 2018 and September 2025.
Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is or might be involved in the reassessment exercise will be available—at no cost—from the Department or from trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust.
The Department has committed to update the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee every six months on progress in the implementation of the Government’s response to the independent review. This will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. Information will also be included in the Department’s annual report and accounts.
[HCWS1488]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 February and consist of an extremely short SI—six lines altogether—and a very slight amendment of a date from 25 April 2026 to 25 October 2026. I am sure noble Lords will be eager to know why that change of date is being undertaken. On 1 April, typical household energy bills reduced by more than £100, thanks to action this Government took following the Budget. Energy bills are lower than they were in March because of the choices made by the Chancellor last year. They will remain capped at this level until July.
I want to be clear what lies behind the reduction in energy bills from 1 April. First, we have taken the considered decision to bring the energy company obligation scheme to a close, removing its costs from bills and instead funding future energy efficiency home upgrades via public investment in the warm homes plan. Secondly, we are moving 75% of the cost of the renewables obligation scheme attributable to domestic energy supply to the Exchequer. These principled reforms shift the balance from levies on bills to public spending. These regulations support that reduction in energy bills by ensuring that the Government retain the necessary power for the renewables obligation cost transfer.
The renewables obligation scheme exists to incentivise UK renewable energy generation through a system of tradeable certificates. The scheme closed to new applications in 2017, but existing sites can continue to receive support until the scheme ends in 2037. The scheme has been instrumental in taking a nascent renewable energy sector to where it is today, with the scheme supporting around 30% of total UK electricity generation. The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewable generators. This process continues unchanged.
However, previously, suppliers ultimately recovered the cost of complying with their renewable obligations from customers via energy bills. Ofgem considered these costs when setting the quarterly price cap for domestic consumers in Great Britain. From 1 April, the Government are instead providing grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the cost of these obligations attributable to domestic energy supply in GB. We have given a legal direction to electricity suppliers, requiring them to pass these savings on to domestic consumers. Ofgem has also reflected the reduced cost in the lower price cap from 1 April. At the Budget, we committed to keep these costs off bills until 31 March 2029.
I hope noble Lords will agree that these are good things to do concerning energy price costs and the reduction of customers’ bills. But, of course, there must be a legislative basis for those changes. The legislative basis for the grant funding that enables the energy bill reductions I have mentioned is currently set to expire on 25 April this year. These regulations, as I have mentioned, extend this time limit to ensure that the removal of costs from electricity bills can continue. We can extend the time limit on the legislation—the Energy Prices Act 2022—by only six months at a time. The extension in these regulations is until 25 October, when the Bill is in effect re-sunsetted.
I therefore expect to return to the House in October to seek a further extension on that sunset clause, but I assure noble Lords that the department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution, which will be taken forward when parliamentary time allows.
The position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, where energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on electricity bills. The department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop an offer comparable to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, we laid separate regulations in March to support their delivery, which I hope to bring before your Lordships shortly.
In concluding, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for noting these regulations as of interest in the context of events in the Middle East, which the department continues to closely monitor.
Energy company obligation costs and 75% of renewables obligation costs have been removed from average domestic energy bills and will stay off bills for at least the next three years. Whatever challenges lie ahead, the Government will prioritise supporting working people with the cost of living. These regulations are ultimately a simple time-limit extension to underpin the removal of these renewables obligation costs from bills. I beg to move.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, the Energy Prices Act 2022 was brought forward in circumstances that were, by any measure, extraordinary. It was a moment of acute global volatility, when Governments across Europe were forced to act at speed to shield households and businesses from unprecedented shocks. Those conditions justified exceptional paths but, as we move further away from that crisis moment, it is right to ask whether repeated extensions of emergency measures remain the most appropriate long-term course.
Energy security today is defined not only by the balance of supply and demand over the year but by the system’s resilience at moments of stress. The Government’s own modelling makes clear that peak day gas demand remains high, even as overall annual consumption gradually declines. It is those peaks, on the coldest days, typically when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and the tightest margins that test the system most severely.
In 2024, gas provided 36% of the UK’s energy needs. It is used not only in generating electricity but, importantly, in domestic and industrial heating. Domestic gas production remains a critical component of the UK energy system. In 2024, the UK continental shelf provided 43% of the UK supply, imports of liquid natural gas provided 14% and the balance was imported from Norway. It is more reliable than imported alternatives, which can always be diverted elsewhere—even the Norwegian imports—as Europe becomes ever hungrier for the same molecules. Domestic gas goes into the extensive UK network at significantly lower carbon-emissions intensity—some three times lower—than liquid natural gas, which predominantly comes from the United States, and it is far less exposed to geopolitical risk or global bidding cycles. LNG will remain an important source of flexibility, but it cannot substitute for domestic supply, particularly given the UK’s very limited gas storage capacity.
Maintaining a stable level of domestic production also sustains the essential infrastructure on which the whole system depends: the pipelines, terminals and onshore hubs that provide flexibility, resilience, affordability and, critically at this current time, jobs. Once the infrastructure and experience are lost, they will not easily be rebuilt.
More broadly, there is a strong case for moving from crisis area interventions towards stable, rule-based arrangements. Such an approach would continue to protect consumers when prices spike, while giving investors the confidence needed to support the system in more normal times. That balance between consumer protection and long-term stability is essential if we are to secure an orderly transition and a resilient energy system for the years ahead.
With these points in mind, I would like to pose four questions to the Minister. First, can he outline a clear pathway from the continued use of emergency powers under the Energy Prices Act towards a permanent, price-responsive framework that supports investment and resilience? Secondly, how do the Government intend to ensure that critical gas infrastructure remains viable if domestic production continues to decline? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the risks associated with greater reliance on LNG imports, particularly in light of the UK’s limited gas storage and exposure to global market volatility? Finally, have the Government considered the carbon implications of increased LNG reliance, given its significantly higher life-cycle emissions compared with UK gas produced here?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 and the related Utilities Act 2000 (Amendment of Section 105) Order 2026, which has already come into force as a companion SI. I thank the Minister for his introduction.
These instruments are technical and minor, but important. They enable the Government to continue to deliver support through the RO to Exchequer scheme, under which 75% of the domestic cost of the renewables obligation is funded by the Exchequer, rather than passed through to household bills. This matters because households remain under intense pressure from high energy costs at a time of renewed global energy insecurity. The renewables obligation is a legacy scheme that was closed to new generators in 2017 but will continue for existing participants until 2037. The Government’s decision, announced in the November 2025 Budget, to shift 75% of the domestic cost to the Exchequer was therefore welcome. This continuation is expected to reduce average household bills by over £100 a year. This alone will not resolve the wider cost of living challenge, but it is a sensible and pragmatic intervention.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is relatively straightforward. It extends by six months, from 25 April to 25 October 2026, the time limit under the Energy Prices Act 2022, allowing the Government to keep using these powers while legislative changes are prepared. In the absence of primary legislation, this is the only way to avoid a gap in this financial support. We therefore support the Government’s intention to maintain assistance under the scheme.
Support to reduce consumer energy bills is needed now more than ever. However, the possible need for repeated short-term extension does raise some broader concerns about timetabling and certainty. Households should not risk losing support simply because the powers needed to deliver it are temporary and expire before replacement legislation is ready. I understand that the Government expect that further instruments will be needed—the Minister confirmed this in his speech—to extend this period again. Without primary legislation in place by October, another SI will need to be brought forward. I understand that the department is working on permanent legislation, which we welcome, but this SI is in effect a short-term bridge, not a long-term permission to proceed indefinitely. It buys the Government time either to legislate or, failing that, to bring forward a further SI.
I will therefore ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, when does he intend to bring forward the proposed primary legislation? What legislative vehicle might be used: will it be the energy independence Bill? How will the department ensure that there are no gaps when temporary powers are replaced?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument, which introduces a minor amendment to the Energy Prices Act 2022 by extending the Secretary of State’s power to grant renewables obligation certificate funding by six months.
His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose this instrument in principle. It is right that the Government’s efforts should be focused on the controllable—namely, policy costs. Indeed, it is welcome that the renewables obligation to Exchequer policy demonstrates the Government’s understanding that their choices have a direct impact on people’s bills; that is why the scheme is being advertised as proof of the £150 that the Government promised to take off energy bills.
However, reducing energy bills by shifting the costs from household bills on to general taxation is a rather disingenuous way of achieving government policy. Whether it is the Government or energy suppliers who pay the upfront fee to Ofgem, the cost of ROCs will still be borne by the public and the cost of renewables will continue to apply. Every time the sun shines, solar farms will receive one or two ROCs per megawatt hour, earning them up to double the wholesale price. Every time the wind blows, offshore wind farms will get almost three times the wholesale price, or £240 per megawatt hour. When these farms are forced to turn off due to insufficient grid capacity, they are in receipt of high-constraint payments of more than £200 per megawatt hour.
The renewables obligation deal will last for another 11 years. These costs are going nowhere, and nobody but the British public is going to fund them. The only result of the RO is to Exchequer policy, and this instrument will mean that the public are made less conscious of what they are funding. Absorbing costs into general government spending may make the cost of the renewables programme more discrete, but it will not save the public purse any money.
The upshot of this is that the renewable transition must be underpinned by a cheaper and more reliable source of energy. The immediate way of achieving this is through oil and gas, which we already manage by importing LNG from Norway and the Middle East. I completely agree with the substance and sentiment of my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s contribution to this short debate. I am aware that this is not the topic of today’s debate, so I will brief, but the intermittent nature of renewables and our current capacity issues mean that we still need to rely on oil and gas. Even during the current war and the subsequent international spike in oil and gas prices, those prices are still cheaper than subsidised renewables. We have the opportunity to divorce ourselves from the vicissitudes of international affairs by exploiting our North Sea reserves, yet the Secretary of State remains as dogmatic as ever. He seemed to toy with the idea of domestic production over the Easter break but, as we sit here today, production at Jackdaw is still yet to commence.
This is in the Government’s control. If they really are committed to reducing energy bills, then, along with subsidising renewables in the long term, they should allow us to produce our own oil and gas in the short term. I hope that the Minister will at least agree with that sentiment; I look forward to his response, in particular to the four intelligent questions posed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will try to respond to their concerns—including those of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who went a bit beyond this particular SI but nevertheless made important points and asked questions that deserve a response.
The noble Lord’s first concern was about whether I can outline a pathway towards permanent legislation here. I agree with him that permanent legislation is always better than re-sunsetting an original sunset clause from previous legislation, as he mentioned. Of course, the Energy Prices Act 2022 was put in place at a time of high crisis as far as energy bills were concerned—not completely dissimilar issues to the ones we face today, but rather more concerned with gas than with oil and fuel generally. Nevertheless, it is a piece of legislation that was designed at least in part to be sunsetted. In essence, what we are doing in this present crisis is re-sunsetting an Act that was originally intended to be sunsetted in the first place. It is quite right that we should bring that sunset request back to the House when we are making it.
Nevertheless, it is a much better idea to have legislation that properly fits the bill in the long term, which is the Government’s intention right now. I mentioned that we will probably want to come back one more time with a sunset extension, in order to make sure that these changes work properly in the long term, but, after that, there should be legislation in place to make a permanent arrangement that is properly workable for the future. Of course, the phrase “when legislative time permits” has a variety of interpretations attached to it, but it is basically a question of finding out to which bit of legislation you can attach this permanent version of a sunset clause. It might be the EIB, but there may be other legislation—we will have to see as we go forward. However, I can give an absolute commitment that we are dedicated to making sure that this happens in the not-too-distant future in order to regularise the circumstances over the longer term.
The noble Lord asked what we are doing to make sure that critical gas infrastructure remains viable. This is a subset of the understanding that, although the use of gas is declining substantially in Great Britain and will continue to do so, the overhead costs and infrastructure issues will remain. It is essential, therefore, that we make sure that the infrastructure is as viable as it can be in the long term and that the whole system does not fall down because we have a lower amount of gas going into and out of it. The Government are actively involved in undertaking that.
By the way, I might add that the increasing amount of biomethane and biogas going into the system—at present, it is about 7% of the total system—will go some way towards assisting the viability of long-term infrastructure. It is certainly this Government’s intention to increase, where possible, the amount of biomethane and biogas going into the system. That gives some indication of where we are on LNG imports, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, have a higher carbon footprint than natural gas, which in turn has a much higher footprint than biogas. At the moment, about 14% of our gas supplies are coming in via LNG. One of the advantages of an increased amount of biogas in the system is that it directly removes the need for LNG to come into the system. All other things considered, something like a 2% increase in biomethane going into the system would be the equivalent of turning around six LNG tankers and them not coming to UK shores at all.
On energy imports in general, the UK has a diverse supply. The noble Lord mentioned the substantial element of supply played by the Norwegian gas fields, some of which are landable only in the UK and not in Norway itself. There is also the continuing supply from the North Sea. I have mentioned LNG, which comes from diverse sources; at the moment, only 1% comes from sources in the Middle East, so that issue will not overturn the security of the gas system in the near future. I hope that I have given fair thought to the noble Lord’s valuable contribution.
I turn to the supportive and helpful contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He is right to add that this is the right thing to do right now, bearing in mind that we very much want to make sure that, in a time of such volatility, domestic and commercial bills are pressed downwards as far as is possible. The two measures I have mentioned rearrange the ways in which bills are charged to some extent, but they nevertheless have the real effect of bringing those bills down considerably. He is quite right to seek an assurance that that is not just a temporary fix for the time being but will be put on a more permanent basis; we are looking to secure legislation to make sure that that happens.
The noble Earl rightly mentioned information sharing on these measures and other measures that are likely coming forward to push down bills. He should be aware of the Utilities Act 2000 (Amendment of Section 105) Order, which has enabled the sharing of more detailed data than DESNZ currently holds between the department and Ofgem. The aim of that order is to ensure that more detailed data is properly safeguarded and is used for the intended purposes, not others. I hope that the noble Earl can be reassured on that basis.
I turn to the valuable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It is true that these measures shift the burden of the legislation from particular consumers to more general taxation purposes. That is a fair thing to do, in terms of generally sharing the burden of increased electricity prices, but I accept that the Government are very much involved in making sure that, by changing the way the electricity market works, prices are much lower over a longer period of time.
National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on 26 February. Automatic enrolment has been widely recognised as a major policy success, significantly increasing participation in workplace pension saving. The National Employment Savings Trust—Nest—has been central to that achievement and will continue to play a key role in supporting the system. Nest now serves nearly 14 million members, around one-third of the working-age population, providing a low-cost, accessible pension scheme for employers and workers across the UK.
Subject to parliamentary approval, this instrument will amend the Nest order 2010, which provides the legislative framework under which Nest operates. The instrument will enable Nest to extend its suite of retirement options to include flexi-access drawdown, a retirement income option that allows individuals with a defined contribution, or DC, pension to withdraw any amount from their pension pot while keeping the remaining funds invested. The instrument will also enable Nest to offer a scheme pension—an income payable to a member either directly by the scheme administrator or through an insurance company appointed by the administrator. This provision allows Nest the flexibility to offer the same range of benefits which can be provided by other comparable pension schemes.
In addition, the instrument will provide Nest with the authority, in the event of a member’s death, to enable the trustee to offer either a dependants’ scheme pension or a drawdown pension to eligible individuals including dependants, nominees or successors. This provision will ensure flexibility in benefit options after death and again aligns Nest with broader industry practice and capabilities.
Overall, this amendment will allow Nest to expand the retirement offer for its members, aligning it to the same range of benefits that other pensions schemes can offer and supporting it to comply with the guided retirement requirements recently debated during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill.
We know that retirement today is not a linear experience and that circumstances change over retirement. Life events—including decisions to work part-time, health conditions and bereavement—all factor in and have an impact on household incomes. Gathering insight and feedback from members is crucial to designing well-structured and flexible pension plans. These changes reflect the needs and preferences of Nest members. This instrument will support the important role Nest plays in the pensions market by enabling it to provide appropriate retirement solutions for Nest members.
Automatic enrolment has encouraged more people to save for their retirement and has made saving normal for most people in work. But getting people saving is just the start and, as we know, people need support when they come to use their savings to provide an income in retirement. Currently, Nest members can use their pension savings to buy an annuity, make use of the uncrystallised funds pensions lump sum facility, take the savings as cash or transfer out to another scheme. However, since Nest’s inception, retirement options have expanded across the pensions market, particularly following the introduction of the pension freedoms in 2015. These flexibilities are not fully available to Nest, which remains constrained by the terms of its original order.
As noble Lords will know, the Pension Schemes Bill contains specific measures around guided retirement. A consultation document, Helping Savers Understand Their Pension Choices: Supporting Individuals at the Point of Access, was published in July 2023 under the previous Government. This asked a specific question about whether Nest should provide default pensions to its members. There was broad support from the 46 industry and member groups that responded, recognising Nest’s unique role and the importance of ensuring fair treatment in line with other schemes, while being clear that Nest should not gain any commercial advantage.
Since that consultation, the Government have continued to engage extensively with Nest and the pensions industry to ensure that that principle of fairness, both to Nest members and to the wider market, has been upheld. Industry players have been active in developing solutions ahead of the guided retirement requirements. For example, in June 2022, the PLSA, now Pensions UK, published Retirement Choices: the Evolution of Products and Support, which set out its framework to support complex decision-making.
Without this change, Nest, the largest master trust, will not be able to offer flexi-access drawdown, nor will it be able to meet fully the expectations of guided retirement—to provide savers with the option of a simple, dependable default income in later life—and Nest savers would therefore miss out on a secure default pension option. With cost of living pressures rising, I am sure the Committee can agree that having a dependable retirement choice is more important than ever. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to bring in this draft order. As my noble friend the Minister has made clear, it builds on the clear success of automatic enrolment and Nest as the public service vehicle for automatic enrolment contributions. It is a crucial element in achieving the Government’s aim, set out in the pensions road map, of ensuring that people get as much out of their savings as possible. In other words, structure is as important as adequacy. Enabling Nest to offer flexi-access drawdown and a scheme pension to its members is an important step, and it brings Nest in line with what other occupational defined contribution schemes have been able to offer.
I want to explore what the order does not necessarily make clear and ask the Minister whether the Government have considered whether more might be done. I will focus on the potential role for Nest in providing collective defined contribution pension schemes. Put simply, as noble Lords know, CDC arrangements pool the risks involved in providing pensions rather than leaving each individual to manage that risk alone. The issue I wish to raise is whether Nest, under the powers conferred by this order, would be legally enabled to offer CDC-type benefits as part of its retirement income proposition.
The order amends Article 32 of the National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, so that in addition to lump sums and lifetime annuities, the trustee may pay drawdown pensions and scheme pensions. The term “Scheme pension” is defined by reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004. That definition is broad. It encompasses a pension payable by the scheme administrator directly, without the interposition of an insurance company. That is significant. A CDC scheme under which the trustee pays a pension directly to members from a pooled fund, applying mortality credits as members of the pool die and their share is redistributed to survivors, would appear to fall within the concept of a scheme pension as defined in the regulations and the Act. I ask the Minister to confirm that interpretation.
This is not a fanciful proposition; Nest contemplated precisely such an arrangement in its 2015 blueprint document, The Future of Retirement. That document set out a three-phase retirement income strategy. The third phase, for members aged 85 and beyond, was to be funded through what the document called a
“later life protected income building block”.
Crucially, the document explicitly considered the operation of this building block through a collective uninsured mortality pool—members pooling their longevity risk with the trustee distributing income proportional to the premiums paid in, supported by mortality credits as the cohort reduces. This is, in effect, a collective defined contribution scheme for decumulation. In other words, Nest was ahead of the curve in 2015. The question is whether this order now places the legal architecture beneath those ambitions.
Concurrent with these regulations, Nest is undertaking a consultation of the changes to its rules it will be able to make in line with the order. That consultation focuses principally on the mechanics of flexi-access drawdown, the drawdown account and the relationship between the pension account and drawdown account, the transfer provisions and the death benefit arrangements. That is all necessary and commendable work, but the consultation is candid on the fact that there are no immediate plans to offer a scheme pension. The relevant rule amendment provides only that
“if and to the extent that the Trustee determines to provide the option”,
a scheme pension may be made available.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Opposition broadly welcome this order. I thank the Minister for her clear outlining of the measures and the detail that she put forward.
This seems a straightforward and genuinely important modernisation of Nest; we are glad to see it being brought forward. Allowing Nest members to access drawdown pensions and scheme pensions—as well as extending broader and more flexible death benefit options to their dependants, nominees and successors—has to be a good thing. However, it also marks a significant shift in responsibility from the system to the individual, which makes the questions of guidance and support all the more important.
At the heart of this change is a principle that we support: people should have genuine control over how they access and use their own money. The pension freedoms introduced in 2015 were built on exactly that principle. Members should not be forced into products that do not suit their circumstances. They should be able to keep their funds invested, draw income at a pace that works for them and pass on what remains to those whom they love. Nest members deserve no less than that, so this order rightly brings them into line with the wider market—so far, so good. However, regardless of that, we have some questions for the Minister; she has touched on some of them.
It is clear to me that greater choice is genuinely valuable only if people are equipped to exercise it wisely. Drawdown is more complex as a product than annuity. It requires members to make judgments on investment risk, longevity and income sustainability—judgments that are not straightforward and which have real, lasting consequences if they go wrong. The introduction of these options for Nest members brings with it, therefore, a serious obligation on the part of the Government.
First, on financial education and support, Nest serves a membership that is, by design, composed largely of lower and moderate earners—people who were auto-enrolled, often for the first time, and who may have had little prior engagement with pension saving. These, in the main, are not members who have financial advisers; the Minister will know that, of course. They are precisely the people for whom the difference between a well-informed and a poorly informed decision at retirement is the most consequential. The Minister covered a number of my queries in her opening remarks, but can she tell us what specific steps the Government are taking to ensure that Nest members are properly supported in understanding these new options? That is more a question of communication. What guidance will Nest itself be required to provide? How will Pension Wise and MoneyHelper be resourced and promoted to reach this membership? What assessment have the Government made of the adequacy of the current financial guidance provision for those who are approaching retirement through auto-enrolment schemes?
Secondly, I know that the Minister spent some time on dependants in her opening remarks, but I want to say this: although the extension of drawdown and flexible death benefit options to dependants, nominees and successors is welcome, it creates its own complexities. A surviving spouse or dependant who suddenly becomes responsible for managing an inherited drawdown pot is in a very different position to someone who has spent years building up their own retirement savings. They may be grieving; they may have little or no experience of investment decisions. Can the Minister give some further information on what support will be available to those who inherit benefits under Nest in these circumstances? What obligations will Nest have to contact, inform and guide beneficiaries at the point when they come into an inherited pension? As the Minister will know, this is not a small matter; for many families, this will represent one of the most significant financial decisions that they have ever had to make.
Thirdly—I make no apology for raising this—this order does not exist in isolation. It has been made against the backdrop of the Pension Schemes Bill currently before the House and the two must therefore be read together. The principle that runs through this order is one of member choice and autonomy. People should be able to access their money in the way that best suits them. We agree with that principle unreservedly, but it is directly and fundamentally in conflict with the mandation provisions that the Government are seeking to introduce in the Pension Schemes Bill. We have made this point in Committee and on Report, and we make it again today.
You cannot, on one hand, expand member choice through instruments such as this and, on the other hand, propose to compel members through mandation into investment in particular outcomes or products not of their own choosing. The two positions are inconsistent. If the Government genuinely believe, as this order suggests, that members should be empowered to make decisions about their own retirement savings, they must abandon the mandation provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill. We will continue to press that case.
I close by raising a point that was highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in respect of this order, which is that a call for evidence was announced in 2022 around these measures. However, they have only just been laid before Parliament. Can the Minister please confirm that she is confident that the evidence submitted is still relevant to the instrument that we are discussing today? Has any additional evidence been sought on this particular question since?
It is right that Nest members have the same freedoms that others in the market have long enjoyed. We are glad to see that that parity is being extended. However, the value of that freedom depends entirely on the quality of support and guidance that surrounds it and on the Government applying the same principle of member autonomy consistently across their wider pensions policy.
We look forward to the Minister’s response on all the points that I have raised. I have also noted all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised on CDCs, which were interesting. We will be watching the progress of the Pension Schemes Bill with close attention, with Commons consideration of Lords amendments on Wednesday; I know that the noble Baroness herself will be doing the same.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their questions and I will try to answer most of them if I can. I will respond first to my noble friend Lord Davies and thank him for his support for this order and its aims. In relation to CDC, this order is obviously focused on certain benefits that Nest will be able to offer; principally, that is flexi-access drawdown. However, the Government are exploring how retirement CDC schemes could broaden options available to trustees and managers of pension schemes when developing default pension plans. It would be the responsibility of Nest trustees, like other schemes, to consider the needs of their members and to provide appropriate default plans. For Nest to offer CDC, the scheme would of course need to meet the relevant authorisation.
More broadly, we have been clear that CDC or retirement CDC could be used by schemes to meet their guided retirement duties but, again, it would be for the scheme trustees to consider the needs of their membership to determine appropriate retirement solutions, including the option of CDC. I may come back to my noble friend if anything else occurs to me.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked an important question about the particular composition of the Nest saver population. Many of these are low-income savers who would not otherwise have previously been involved in saving. Of course, one great advantage of these changes is that Nest is able to offer a wider range of choice and, crucially, through that, to meet its requirements under guided retirement. As he knows from our debates on the Pension Schemes Bill, guided retirement is the means by which the Government can make sure that schemes offer a default option to people, without them having to make complex decisions, which has an income element into retirement. That is the greatest source of the protection there.
It is also a protection against people simply making the choice to take cash, which may not be the right thing for them to do. Nest set out its blueprint about what its default option would look like, which was in different sections. There were the options of different pots: a drawdown pot, a cash pot and an income in later life. That is therefore the direction in which one would expect them to move. I do not think that there is anything else I can say at this stage, but I will go through Hansard and, if there is anything specific that I have not responded to, I would be very happy to do so.
The amendment that this instrument makes to the Nest order is crucial to the Government’s wider ambition to strengthen and modernise the pensions system, making it simpler and more attuned to the needs of today’s workforce. Obviously, I completely reject the case made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that anything the Government are doing here contradicts anything in the Pension Schemes Bill, but since we have had many conversations about that subject and many more joyfully beckon to us, I may leave that for another day if he will permit me to do so.
Before I wind up entirely, another thought occurs to me. I was asked whether the Government have engaged with Nest. The Government hold regular meetings with Nest in relation to guided retirement and CDC provision. As with other workplace trust-based schemes, in terms of offering CDC it would be for the trustees to determine suitable retirement options for members, consistent with guided retirement. As I said, the Government are exploring how retirement CDC schemes can broaden the options available to trustees. If I have anything further on the timing of the regulations that would be needed in that direction for deaccumulation-only CDC schemes, I will come back to my noble friend.
By delivering this instrument, the Government are ensuring that 14 million people, many of them lower-income workers, can access an enhanced range of products to support them in retirement, giving them greater confidence and a clearer pathway towards financial security in later life. I commend this instrument to the Committee and I beg to move.
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 26 February.
This Government are committed to delivering the clean power mission, which is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, lowering household energy bills and driving long term economic growth. Crucially, clean power is one of the most important tools we have to tackle climate change. This statutory instrument represents an important milestone in the Government’s delivery of the clean power mission. It is not only about accelerating offshore wind; it is also a real opportunity to deliver meaningful, lasting gains for nature. This SI reflects this Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand and that, with the right approach, they absolutely can.
I will begin by setting out the issue that this SI will address. When compensating for impacts to protected sites, developers must follow the mitigation hierarchy; that means they must first avoid, and then minimise and mitigate, impacts on protected sites. Once those steps have been taken, developers are required to compensate for unavoidable impacts, normally with measures that benefit the impacted feature affected. As our offshore wind capacity grows, securing compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features is becoming increasingly difficult. This challenge has become one of the main reasons for delays in consenting decisions.
This statutory instrument tackles that issue by widening the range of suitable compensatory measures for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available to compensate for the impacts of offshore wind, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. These will benefit ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. In doing so, this statutory instrument will not only remove one of the main obstacles to timely consenting but open up new opportunities to enhance and invest in nature.
So, rather than limiting compensatory measures to a single feature, developers could support broader initiatives, such as programmes to strengthen sea-bird populations. Through innovative approaches such as these, the statutory instrument demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring that nature and economic growth can be achieved in unison.
Defra’s offshore wind environmental improvement package has been designed to strike exactly that balance. It brings forward measures that simplify the consenting process, supporting faster, more efficient decision-making, while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet the UK’s domestic and international commitments. This package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach to environmental compensation for offshore wind. This has been demonstrated through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the launch of the marine recovery fund.
This statutory instrument is another essential part of that package. Building on its existing successes, it will increase flexibility to further accelerate the deployment of offshore wind, while continuing to protect and enhance our marine environment. Today, by approving this statutory instrument, I believe we have the opportunity to deliver an approach for environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind that facilitates our transition to clean power and delivers for nature.
Before I turn to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination of this statutory instrument. The committee’s report raised concerns regarding the laying of the statutory instrument without publishing the accompanying draft guidance. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the policy intent has been set out transparently through the material already provided. I was pleased that the committee welcomed the publication of a policy note alongside this instrument, providing helpful context and information.
This statutory instrument has been laid ahead of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can proceed without delay, while we take the necessary time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard. The guidance will support implementation once it is published on 21 May. This date will coincide with the statutory instrument coming into force, ensuring that all stakeholders have clear, comprehensive guidance in place from the first day.
The guidance will provide technical and practical support to developers and relevant public bodies, including consenting authorities. We have shared the draft widely with stakeholders and the devolved Governments to ensure that it is robust, aligned across the UK and, importantly, fully fit for purpose when published. I believe that the published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.
I now turn to the details of the legislation. This statutory instrument will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of practical environmental compensatory measures, as I said in my introduction. Without action to expand the compensatory measures that are currently available, the UK’s ability to unlock its offshore wind potential will be constrained.
The territorial application of this statutory instrument is the UK. It has effect in relation to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and for certain offshore wind functions in Welsh and Northern Ireland inshore waters.
We are amending the existing regulations to introduce a new bespoke compensation duty for offshore wind. This will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network.
Environmental safeguards sit at the heart of our new approach. The environmental safeguards will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature. As part of this, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. This requires developers to select compensatory measures in line with the hierarchy and to prioritise those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. This hierarchy is a central pillar of the environmental safeguards underpinning these reforms.
Another key safeguard is the role of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider this expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.
As part of these reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is that this will bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact: for example, by targeting actions that contribute directly to improving the ecological resilience and long-term health of multiple marine protected areas.
All this work will feed into a wider review that assesses the impact of our statutory instrument on offshore wind developments and the environment. This review will be published by April 2031, with further reports following at intervals of no more than five years.
I recognise that there may be concerns about the reforms amending the current regulatory approach, so I want to be absolutely clear that this Government are firmly committed to delivering on our climate and nature ambitions. This statutory instrument implements necessary and timely change to the environmental compensation requirements for the offshore wind sector. We are confident that its provisions will uphold strong environmental protections, enable substantial and sustainable growth in offshore wind and ensure that nature and clean energy continue to progress side by side. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the statutory instrument. There is no doubt that climate change is an existential threat that demands urgent and transformative action. The soaring temperatures, floods and rising sea levels that we see are not distant warnings but present realities affecting millions.
We, the Liberal Democrats, have long championed recognition of the climate emergency and the need for a fair deal for our environment, central to which is a clean energy revolution. We are committed to an industrial strategy with tackling climate change at its core, and to a goal of generating 90% of the UK’s electricity from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind is vital to achieving that, and removing unnecessary barriers is overdue. We also recognise the Government’s ambition of reaching 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is essential for our net-zero goals and energy security.
But this transition must go hand in hand with the protection of our precious wildlife. We cannot solve the climate crisis by exacerbating the nature crisis. Our view is clear: we must double the size of the protected area network and the abundance of species by 2050. Britain’s seas currently face serious strains. Recent sea-bird statistics show continuing declines and, tragically, 10 of the UK’s breeding sea-bird species are now red-listed. Without effective compensation, the expansion of offshore wind risks pushing vulnerable species even closer to the edge.
We support the aim of the pragmatic tier system for environmental compensation in this statutory instrument. However, we share the concerns of organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts about the inclusion of tier 3 and strongly suggest that this is revisited and perhaps revised. I thank the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this matter.
Under these regulations, tier 1 and tier 2 measures provide direct or closely related ecological benefits to the affected species or habitat. We are concerned that tier 3 is different. It would allow measures that give broader benefits across a wider marine protected area network without a direct link to the species or site damaged. I look forward to being corrected on this by the Minister if I have got it wrong. That risks weakening the principle of ecological coherence. For example—I would be very happy to hear a response to this specific example—harm to a kittiwake colony should not be compensated through unrelated education projects that do nothing to restore the lost birds.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. I will speak very briefly to one or two concerns. The wording in the proposed regulations appears somewhat unclear, with insufficient information to gauge the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation. Importantly, no meaning is given for the term “reasonably proportionate”. Replacing the widely understood and legally tested concept of overall coherence with that vague concept could lead to a failure to maintain or improve the status of the marine protected area network. How will this definition maintain existing levels of environmental protection?
The compensation to be delivered through wider compensatory measures reads as extremely broad in the explanatory material, the only condition being that it must benefit the wider MPA network. This could undermine environmental protections. Again, more clarity is required to ensure that environmental protections under the habitat regulations are not severely reduced, as our habitats are so valuable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the draft conservation of habitats and species regulations today and I share many of the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Before I begin, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests as an owner and developer of onshore wind energy infrastructure.
We on these Benches recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. This month’s updated assessment and good environmental status of the UK marine strategy shows that cetaceans, birds, fish, benthic habitats, food webs, contaminants and marine litter have not met good environmental status. Another six categories have been partially met or are uncertain; only two categories have seen GES met. The update highlights the mixed picture for marine ecosystems, with high pressure on our seas, which are getting warmer, more acidic and oxygen depleted. This is not an encouraging picture and highlights why legislation, such as that we are considering today, needs to be given detailed scrutiny.
These regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of these developments is determined and delivered. The compensation, rather than necessarily focusing on the features directly affected, could target similar features, potentially elsewhere in the UK’s MPA network. My first concern with the SI, which, as others have mentioned, has already been highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, is that it leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. The Government have conceded that they are taking a novel approach, but this is no justification for asking the House to approve a framework without being clear how it will operate in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of these reforms, and it simply is not clear why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with this legislative process. Instead, the guidance will be published only once the SI has come into force on 21 May. This is not good practice.
My second concern is that this approach allows for a similar approach to that taken under the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which the House spent so much time on earlier this year, which allows environmental damage through development with the conscience salved by payment to a general fund, although, at least in this case, I am grateful that the compensation hierarchy is protected from the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I am also grateful to the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this. It is the third tier of compensation where the main issue lies, potentially allowing for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. Can the Minister reassure us that tier 3 would not be permitted in these circumstances and that it would not be allowed to become the default setting as a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy? It would also be helpful to receive reassurance that the compensation funds raised through this legislation would be applied only to damage being caused by the offshore wind industry rather than becoming a general pot that could be used in other industries.
It has been left to the future guidance to set out the hierarchy of compensation measures, determining which are the most beneficial to the MPA network. How will the condition of this network be better monitored in order to understand which measures are the most beneficial? As has been pointed out by Wildlife and Countryside Link, many assessments are over six years old, and many features are not assessed at all. Further, any agreements reached with developers must be deliverable and viable so as not to deter investment.
Building on the recommendation of RenewableUK, how will the forthcoming guidance balance the timing requirements involved in implementing compensation measures with the project’s construction schedules, for example? Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will be kept under review to respond to concerns as they arise, while giving certainty in what is already a complex policy environment? Is it likely that the guidance will address the concerns I have raised? Which agency will be responsible for implementing this legislation and who will cover its costs?
It is hoped that the establishment of marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet MRFs are not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is also important to note that MRFs are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of MRFs will be and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?
Our concerns about this SI are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, we on these Benches support the development of affordable, home-grown energy sources; that is why we oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. Indeed, amid a web of subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. As the Minister laid out earlier, I know that she shares these aims.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am conscious that I have asked quite a few questions so, if she feels the need to write, that is of course welcome.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will try to be brief because we have some votes coming up fairly soon. I will write to noble Lords on anything I have not covered; I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and comments.
We are trying to strike the right balance in establishing a new approach to environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind. We need to accelerate our shift towards renewable energy, but we also need to ensure that we still have positive outcomes for the environment—in particular, the marine environment. What has come across today is that both Ministers and noble Lords understand the importance of getting that balance right.
We have covered a lot of ground so I will do my best to cover some bits quite quickly. On the publishing of the guidance, as I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on our approach of laying the guidance in draft for the moment then laying it in full after we have debated it. It is critical that we deliver this statutory instrument. We have been fully transparent about the policy intent that underpins both the SI and the guidance. As I said, the response to the consultation and the published policy clearly set out what the guidance is going to cover. We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders to discuss the guidance content; we have also collaborated closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have proper alignment.
As I said, the guidance will apply in English waters to Wales and Northern Ireland waters, which is why the work that we have done with the devolved Administrations has been so important. The guidance will outline the wider compensatory measures and will explain how a developer could demonstrate that any proposed compensatory measures would provide ecological benefits to the UK’s marine protected area network. It will also explain that this will be achieved in different ways for each tier of the compensation hierarchy, which will give more information on that. The guidance will also cover the requirement for all wider compensatory measures to be taken from the library of strategic measures, and it will lay out an expectation for wider compensatory measures to be delivered through the marine recovery fund, because that is the best way to have a proper, co-ordinated approach.
I come to the point about ensuring that the compensatory measures do not lead to a deterioration. The Division is on so I will have to come back—I am very sorry.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I was just finishing talking about questions on guidance. On the last point on that, whether the guidance would be reviewed, I can confirm that it will be reviewed and updated as part of the review process, and that is included in the statutory instrument.
I was asked as well how we were going to ensure that the wider compensatory measures introduced by the SI do not lead to the deterioration of specific species, populations and habitat types. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred in particular to sea-birds. We have carefully considered how to avoid this, because the last thing we want to see is deterioration in affected species and habitats. All the wider compensatory measures will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will use expert advice and the best available scientific evidence to ensure that they are ecologically robust. That approach aims to mitigate declines in specific habitats or particular populations.
In addition, the proposed public compensation register, as well as the review that I just mentioned, will help to ensure that we can monitor the environmental impacts of the wider compensatory measures on specific habitats and species. We will keep a really close eye, because there is no point bringing something in if it is not going to do what we want it to do. I reassure noble Lords that we will ensure that the new approach to offshore wind is implemented in a way that continues to abide by our domestic and international commitments.
I was also asked about the timing of compensatory measures. On timing, the guidance will cover that compensatory measures should be in place and functional by the time damage to a protected site begins. The guidance will also outline the circumstances in which the adverse effect may occur before the measure is in place and functional—but the whole point is to have it in place when that starts, so that it is up and running.
A number of other environmental safeguards accompany the statutory instrument, and I shall put them on record too. In England and Wales, wider compensatory measures will need to be drawn from the library of strategic compensation measures, which contains measures approved by the Defra Secretary of State or by Welsh Ministers for some projects. In Scotland, the measures do not need to be taken from the library. We are also in discussion with the Northern Ireland Executive as to whether they wish to approve the measures in the library.
Statutory nature conservation bodies will, of course, continue to advise on the ecological effectiveness, feasibility and viability of any proposed compensatory measures, and all compensatory measures, as I have just said, will be monitored to ensure that they deliver their expected outcomes. If we think that they are not going to function as expected, adaptive management will usually be required to adjust or replace the measure.
The SI also includes a requirement for the review. The point of the review is to assess the statutory instrument as a whole and assess the compensation hierarchy and guidance against any objectives. That will include assessing the impact on the environment and on offshore wind consenting. The mandatory review will ensure continued scrutiny and accountability. As I say, we will be keeping a close eye on it.
We are also exploring the development of a public compensation register. The idea around that is that it will collate information on environmental compensatory measures right across the UK marine protected area network, in order to improve transparency and highlight any further opportunities that could be brought in.
I was also asked about the use of funds and the uptake of the marine recovery fund, which is critical, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said. It is already established and has received applications, and we are pretty confident that developers will use it. As I mentioned earlier, we have done a lot of work with stakeholders to ensure that what we bring in will be fit for purpose. I clarify that the funding comes from developers and can be used only for offshore wind compensation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, asked what is meant by “reasonably proportionate” and whether the definition will keep the existing levels of environmental protections. The guidance will set out the considerations for determining whether the benefit of a compensatory measure or the package of measures is reasonably proportionate to the adverse impacts. In broad terms, what we are saying is that delivering compensatory measures with benefits that are reasonably proportionate to the impacts of the protected site will require a consideration of the magnitude of the impact of the plan or project in comparison with the quality and anticipated ecological benefit of the compensatory measure. I hope that helps to clarify.
The compensatory measure would not need to exactly match the impact, but there would need to be a credible evidence-based assessment of the level of ecological benefit to be provided in order to compensate for any impact. Consenting authorities will be required to assess what is reasonably proportionate on a case-by-case basis. They will rely on expert advice, including the advice of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to provide advice on all the different compensatory measures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned tiers. Developers will have to demonstrate through a robust evidence-based case that no other feasible ecologically effective tier 1 measure is available or that any wider measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. The consenting authority, having considered advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies, will make the final decision. In making that final decision, it must be absolutely satisfied that any justification for moving through the hierarchy is absolutely sound. These safeguards will ensure that the compensatory measure cannot be bypassed if it is available and remains the most ecologically beneficial option.
I hope that I have covered everything—I will check Hansard and, if not, I will come back to noble Lords; having had two votes in the middle of this, I am starting to lose track. Turning back to the statutory instrument, the legislation is to provide a more flexible, pragmatic approach to securing environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind and to unlock these new strategic opportunities to drive nature recovery.
It is important that we are prepared to make bold and carefully considered changes because we need to make sure that our marine protected areas and the wider marine environment can recover and thrive alongside any expansion of clean energy infrastructure. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we seem to be in an increasingly unstable world, so it is important that we have secure, sustainable, renewable energy that is homegrown. This statutory instrument is a critical component on the UK’s path to becoming a clean energy superpower, while at the same time ensuring that we protect our marine environment, which is absolutely integral to our approach. I beg to move.
House of Lords
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 27 March, of the noble Lords, Lord Dunlop, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Trefgarne; with effect from 28 March, of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton; with effect from 31 March, of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg; and with effect from 1 April, of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to this House.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To resolve that this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Simon Peter Burton from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Simon Peter Burton has executed the important duties of his office.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 July last year, I informed the House that Simon Burton had announced his intention of retiring from the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April this year. In November, I announced that Chloe Mawson would become his successor. I indicated at the time that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Simon, and I am pleased to do so today.
The position of the Clerk of the Parliaments has a long and proud history. I know that Simon felt privileged to be in post as the 20th holder of that office on the 200th anniversary of the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824—although in 1824 the role was very different from that of today.
Since Simon joined your Lordships’ House in January 1988, over 38 years ago, he has been dedicated in every role he has held. On leaving university, having applied for the Civil Service Fast Stream, his career plans changed when he was sent information about work in the House of Lords. From then on, he was hooked. He started in the Committee Office, eventually becoming the first clerk of our important Constitution Committee and setting up the delegated legislation committees, which have become central to the work of this House.
Between 1986 and 1999, Simon took on the position of private secretary to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip—no easy task, I can tell you. That is a key role in working with the leadership to manage the business and work of the House. It was obviously a time of significant change and, as some noble Lords will recall, not without controversy on constitutional issues affecting your Lordships’ House. Lord Carter, the then Government Chief Whip, praised Simon’s
“tireless, expert and dexterous work in facilitating the usual channels”—[Official Report, 30/7/1999; col. 1827.]
over those three years.
In many ways, those first 11 years perhaps set the tone for Simon’s career. There is no doubt that he has huge respect and admiration for the work of this House. Those qualities have helped steer us through political changes, internal changes, huge challenges, and nationally significant and emotional events. On becoming the senior officer of the House as the Clerk of the Parliaments, his commitment to managing that change has been more important than ever. With Covid, we had the transition to remote working, then the easing back to hybrid and then to a physical House. So many of the conventional wisdoms about how we work had been challenged and needed to be managed. Of course, despite being involved with the huge challenges of the R&R project, it was never anticipated that the joint responsibility would be bestowed on the Clerk of the Parliaments, but Simon fulfilled that additional role with his usual diligence.
Of course, not all change is universally welcomed. Some may recall that there was a time when our Table Clerk seating arrangements involved a hard, backless bench. Simon introduced the radical move to bring in individual ergonomic chairs. A “Yes Minister” sketch might have described this as a courageous move.
During Simon’s tenure, we had the parting of Her late Majesty the Queen and the accession of King Charles, which was an emotional time for the nation and this House. Although Simon was in office for just one general election, he has worked with three Lord Speakers and seven group leaders, including three Leaders of the House.
The role of the Clerk of the Parliaments is not just about leadership of the House and managing business but about the whole House, Members and staff. Simon’s personal commitment to junior colleagues to ensure they felt valued in their work and in their careers has been greatly appreciated. In many ways, Simon started his career here in the same way as when he retired, and he retires while still maintaining that professionalism, commitment, dedication and affection for the House with which he started. On behalf of the whole House, we thank him.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Lord Privy Seal in her elegant tribute to Simon Burton, our departing Clerk of the Parliaments. We are all sad to see Simon go. As the noble Baroness said, he joined the House in 1988. I checked: there are now barely two dozen Peers who were here when the young, fresh-faced Simon first appeared. I say “young” deliberately as, whatever winds may blow, he is still as fresh-faced and cheerful in his mien as ever he was in 1988.
The House values its clerks and I hope they all know that. We value that unique, essential career and all the associated skills, of which Simon embodied so many. We value experience and loyalty such as Simon has exemplified, not just to us, the Peers, but to all those in our exceptional staff whom he has led with care and dedication. As the noble Baroness said, many management changes have been effected in his time, and I know the pride that Simon takes in having confronted outdated behaviours and promoted a more diverse and inclusive environment for all.
The noble Baroness the Leader referred to the many and varied roles that Simon has held. I again pick out the fact he was the first to clerk one of our most important committees, that on the constitution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will refer to his long service in EU scrutiny—from looking at some of the current press releases, maybe we will need those skills again.
Among the many changes in which Simon was involved were the creation of the Legislation Office, to which the noble Baroness referred, which was important, and the transformation of the digital services of the House of Lords. I first met Simon in 1997 when I became private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, the present Marquess of Salisbury. There was not actually much digital then: we used to have to staple the Whip by hand and send it out by post. I reflect sometimes that, with today’s postal service, it would have been a wonder if the House had ever been quorate in the 1990s.
Simon was then seconded to the Cabinet Office as private secretary to the Leader of the House. Those were challenging times, as the noble Baroness said, with the change of Government after 18 years and the sweeping manifesto proposals to remove hundreds of Members of your Lordships’ House. It sounds quite familiar, perhaps.
He and I, in those difficult circumstances, found ourselves harnessed together as the operative elements of the usual channels. It was with Simon that I learned many of those useful and mysterious arts, which I have not entirely forgotten, which can sometimes bring us frustration but which should always work for peace across this House.
Simon was always the most congenial of colleagues then and is today. The office of Clerk of the Parliaments is a great one, with immense responsibilities, as our Leader has told us. Simon found himself in partnership with colleagues in the other place taking much of the brunt—among other things—of the huge trials of R&R, which he could never have expected when taking the Civil Service exams all those years ago. I know that it was a great satisfaction for him to see costed proposals finally laid before both Houses shortly before the end of his term.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there have been on 65 Clerks of the Parliaments in the 700 years or more since the role was formed and, as the Leader said, only 20 since the 1824 Act—which governs the role now in statute and argued then for the salary to be the princely sum of £40. It was not set on whether it was inflation-linked, but I am sure that the new clerk will be glad that it was not. That period included the 77 years of the “father and son” role of the Scottish Rose family, almost hereditary in nature for the Clerks of the Parliaments. At that time, their role included a spell in which a sitting MP was also Clerk of the Parliaments in this House—taking joint services a step too far.
The role today, as the Leader said, is in many respects greatly different from that as set out in that legislation. It has been an uneasy one, perhaps—being chief adviser on procedure, master of Norman French but also head of procurement, overseeing security and being responsible for almost constant catering complaints. Simon’s career since 1988 in the House has been marked by courtesy and openness as well as a deep love of parliamentary practice. Those who chaired committees which he clerked, and those such as I who have worked closely with him more recently, have found common features—tirelessness of work, professionalism, courtesy and a real sense of dedication.
Simon was also at the forefront of innovation and change—words sometimes unfamiliar over many years about the House of Lords but which have been led by Simon. He has overseen long-term security and safety of parliamentary archives, huge advances in digital services and professionalising and improving staffing conditions for all who work in this institution. This was put to very effective use when as Clerk Assistant he was responsible for parliamentary services through the very testing times of Covid. Ironically, for some, the House of Lords moved faster and more effectively than the House of Commons. We have learned lessons that benefit us today. We thank Simon and the whole team for that. He took up the Clerk of the Parliaments role when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the Duke of Edinburgh died on his second day in office. His role as part of the term of the connected ceremonies and procedures for that but also for the state funeral of Her Late Majesty and the accession of King Charles was seen not just by us as Members of this House but around the world. He put this institution in good stead, with great respect, having carried out those functions with great success.
The changes in procedures, standards, approaches to working, and, indeed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, the R&R project, in which Simon has had much more of a hands-on role perhaps than the Roses did as his predecessors in the 1840s and 1850s, all mark an extremely active period of which Simon can be rightly proud.
On a personal note, I often reflect on the working environment of the House now compared with a period when I was an assistant to a Peer in 1997. Simon, working first with and then leading colleagues across the House, has transformed this place into a more professional, safe and respectful one for all who work here in whatever form. Perhaps that is his legacy, of which he can be proud, and we can be most thankful that the House of Lords carries out its constitutional functions well and in a way where all Members and staff are valued. We are extremely grateful for his role in doing that.
These Benches, of course, wish his successor as the 66th clerk the greatest of success. We are very confident that she will bring all her outstanding skills to that role and will be a great success. These Benches share the remarks of the Leader and the noble Lord, Lord True, and wish Simon a very happy retirement with our grateful thanks.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and indeed to hear the wonderful remarks from the Leader and from the noble Lord, Lord True, earlier on. I am in the rare and happy position of agreeing with every word that has been said so far in support of the Motion paying tribute to Simon.
Simon was born in 1964. This, of course, was the year of that most important album and indeed the Oscar-winning film so relevant for his career: “A Hard Day’s Night”. Indeed, 40 years ago, on his very first day in the House, the House sat until nearly midnight—the regular pattern that we know so well.
Simon’s career was very much connected with the Select Committees of our House. On becoming the clerk of a Select Committee for the first time in what was then another era, he famously was told by his chair not to arrange meetings on Wednesdays. When he asked why, he was told, “You see, it ruins both weekends”.
Simon’s outstanding record as a committee clerk has been very well covered, and the noble Lord, Lord True, anticipated me here, because it would be wrong for me not to comment on his time as clerk of the European Union Committee. His chair at that time was Lord Grenfell, and they were very much responsible for the tuning of the structures that allowed for the effective scrutiny of the 900 or so legislative proposals that came out of Brussels every year; scrutiny, that is, by the main EU committee and its six sub-committees. Later on, in my seven years as a member and then, latterly, chair of the committee, I greatly benefited from the smooth machinery that Simon had such a hand in building.
Simon had become Clerk Assistant by the time that I became Deputy Speaker in 2019. At the time, it had been some time since a new Deputy Speaker had been appointed. Indeed, there was only one other Deputy Speaker below the age of 70, and they were a sprightly 68. Simon agreed to conduct a training course. I was blissfully unaware of just how busy the Clerk Assistant is, but Simon always seemed to have time for me and went carefully through the Deputy Speaker’s manual with me. Those sessions were punctuated by good humour and his great booming laughter. He made careful notes of a number of anomalies that we came across in the manual and an updated manual appeared a few months later, but as ever, Simon took no credit for what was his work.
I turn briefly to Simon’s time as Clerk of the Parliaments—briefly not because I could not have said a lot but because it has already been said. But I will observe two things. First, at the core of Simon’s style is the care for the welfare and interests of his staff. Secondly, we all know and enjoy the very high quality, level of expertise and can-do attitude of each and every one of our staff. These two things are surely connected and the nexus is Simon. It is therefore no surprise that his successor comes from within his ranks. On behalf of these Benches, I congratulate Chloe Mawson and welcome her to the role.
Simon’s last late-night duty, just before the Recess, took him to 1.45 am—a final hard day’s night. It is for that and all his many achievements that on behalf of these Benches I thank him very warmly and wish him a long and happy retirement.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, from these Benches I echo the comments of those noble Lords who have gone before me. I pay tribute to Simon Burton, whose service as Clerk of the Parliaments has been of lasting value to the House.
The strength of our parliamentary life depends not only on those who speak in debate but on those who ensure that our work is carried out with integrity, order and constitutional faithfulness. In that vital task, Simon has served with distinction. As Clerk of the Parliaments, he has been both guardian of ancient custom and wise guide through modern complexity. He has exercised that responsibility with clarity of judgment, intellectual rigour and an unfailing sense of proportion.
His counsel has reminded us that procedure is not an obstacle to good government but one of its essential safeguards. He has always displayed a can-do and hands-on attitude, exemplified by a query sent from our Benches to Simon relating to Prayers in the House. It turned out that this required removing an artwork from the upper West Front Corridor to read the only surviving original draft of the relevant Standing Order, which was on the artwork’s reverse. Simon dutifully obtained a screwdriver, removed it, read it and replaced it.
On behalf of all on these Benches, I acknowledge especially Simon’s attentiveness to the character of this House as a place of respectful disagreement and careful scrutiny. His advice has always been impartial, measured and deeply informed by a sense of the public good. As Clerk of the Parliaments, he met all new Bishops to give advice and support. In his previous role of Reading Clerk, he had the unenviable task of reading all our complicated summonses to the House.
As has been observed, Simon led his team with humanity and supported his colleagues with generosity and calm, particularly in moments of pressure. He has shown that true authority is most often exercised quietly, in the finest traditions of the House. At a time when confidence in institutions can be fragile, his service stands as a powerful example of professionalism, integrity and devotion to duty.
Simon’s legacy will be found not in prominence but in the strength and dignity of this House itself. On behalf of the Lords spiritual, and indeed the whole House, I offer Simon our sincerest thanks and very best wishes for the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, as I conclude the tributes from your Lordships’ House to our departing Clerk of the Parliaments, it remains for me to thank Simon Burton for his much-valued service and contributions. From his appointment to the post in 2021 to his retirement this year, the activity of the House has increased dramatically. Simon exercised his duties as this House’s senior clerk with all the confidence, compassion and energy that exemplified his long career of service in this place.
Simon will be remembered for the procedural changes made during his tenure that have been referred to and for the continual support he selflessly offered to Members of your Lordships’ House. We shall greatly miss Simon’s humour, insight and sense of duty. His meetings were often punctuated with gales of laughter coming from his room. We wish him a richly deserved retirement after his 38 years of service to us.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Clerk Assistant
The Lord Speaker
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Duncan James Sagar to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Employment
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of developments in artificial intelligence on current levels of employment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The AI and the Future of Work Unit has been set up to research and monitor AI’s economic and labour market impacts and to provide policy advice. The unit published its first assessment in January, finding that AI capabilities are progressing rapidly and noting that hiring has been falling faster in occupations more exposed to AI, although it stressed that whether AI is responsible for these patterns remains unclear. To further increase the Government’s capability to monitor and anticipate AI’s economic impacts, the Chancellor announced a new AI Economics Institute supplementing the future of work unit with a broader focus on the economics of AI.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, we already know there is a growing challenge in the graduate job market exacerbated by AI, as we have recently discussed in your Lordships’ House. A study by King’s College London has shown that senior leaders across all job markets will be needed who cannot be replaced by AI. What plans do the Government have to ensure there is no dearth in senior leadership further down the line due to a lack of entry-level recruitment?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government recognise that entry-level roles are important for building skills and progression pathways that underpin future leadership capability. Progression to senior leadership depends not only on job numbers but on the quality of training and in-work development. The Government want everyone to have access to the best opportunities, no matter what stage they are at in their career. Through the £1.5 billion youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, we are expanding high-quality training, apprenticeships and workplace experience so people can progress in a changing, AI-enabled labour market.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, one of the good things about the Government’s industrial strategy was the establishment of regional professional businesses and services hubs, partly to look into the provision of AI services, supported by Skills England which was to map where AI skills gaps were. Will the Minister please update us on when those hubs will be operational and when Skills England will produce their first statistics?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Reducing the AI skills gap and understanding the impact of the labour market’s change due to AI is indeed something that we are looking at closely. DSIT regularly reviews the AI labour market and skills gap, and we are working with Skills England to fully understand the needs. I will need to update the noble Lord on the role of the regional centres he mentions after this session.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government have cited their own Ipsos research that 84% of people at work have not undertaken any AI training in the past 12 months. The Government’s AI skills boost programme is welcome, but it is not enough. Will the Minister commit to personal learning accounts, giving individuals genuine choice over their upskilling, and to prioritising putting the creativity and critical reasoning at the heart of the national curriculum that AI cannot replicate?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that AI poses challenges and opportunities to those in the labour market. The AI skills boost programme that the Government have announced is extremely ambitious in its reach. It will see a major expansion to upskill 10 million workers, which is a huge endeavour and will see the UK fit to grab the opportunities of the AI technology that is coming today.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what discussions she has had with our universities and colleges of further education to assess what changes they are making in the curriculum that they are offering to students and the nature of those? There is a risk with AI that a lot of junior degree activity will be removed. It is therefore also important to find out what research these institutions are undertaking to try and assess the future implications.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We work closely with Skills England and with the DfE to understand the changes that AI is bringing and what that means in terms of the education system, what skills students need to develop and how to apply them. We are supporting the expansion of AI education in universities, for example through the TechLocal AI degree accelerator. This is a conversation that is ongoing. As the noble Lord suggests, it is something that we need to be very mindful of.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of The Pipeline, a gender parity consultancy. Our latest research has shown that 43% of young women entering the workforce are concerned that AI will replace them. Given that AI is increasingly taking over administrative tasks and that women are overrepresented in administrative roles, what assessment have the Government made of the gendered impact of AI on employment? What targeted plans are in place to support all those in the workforce, particularly young women, with AI training and upskilling opportunities?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there may be differential impacts throughout the labour market. ONS analysis suggests that administrative roles may see greater transformation from AI, while our AI adoption research shows that marketing, administration and IT are the most common areas of current or planned use. The AI and the Future of Work Unit is monitoring sectoral and distributional impacts, including on gender and region. We will support those through the commitment to upskill 10 million people by 2030 and, alongside the Women in Tech Taskforce, to champion diversity in the UK tech sector.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. We should be cautious about the assumption that improved AI skills alone will enable job seekers to adapt to a changing labour market. The misapplication of AI in recruitment often generates unmanageable volumes of synthetic job applications, making it impossible to identify genuinely qualified candidates. Without an efficiently functioning recruitment market, the Government’s efforts to boost employment will be even less effective than they currently are, so will the Minister please encourage the future of work unit to look into the matter urgently?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount has rightly highlighted the importance of responsible AI in recruitment guidance. As he knows, the Government have set out good practice for recruitment practitioners and agencies in procuring and deploying AI systems for HR and recruitment. I am sure that this will be a topic that the future of work unit will consider as it takes forward its work.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
Does the Minister agree that AI is becoming a rather convenient punchbag for our rising unemployment? Are not the real culprits low growth, poor productivity and increasing costs and taxes on jobs? If so, why not focus on the opportunity rather than the perceived threat and do more to encourage the creation of new roles around AI, notably in the fields of technology, data and financial services?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Indeed, the OECD estimates that widespread AI adoption could boost UK productivity by 0.4 to 1.3 percentage points annually. That is why we have an AI Opportunities Action Plan and why we have already progressed 38 of the 50 recommendations. The AI sector already employs 86,000 people in the UK and is growing rapidly. We are doing everything we can to support the safe and sustainable adoption of AI so that companies and workers can benefit.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s question was spot on, but may I focus on a slightly different area? I read over the weekend that Anthropic has produced software that it now deems too dangerous to launch publicly because of its huge impact on cyber security. This artificial intelligence is apparently able to crack all the flaws and bugs in cyber security systems, which obviously could have a devastating impact on our economy, given that it is now so digitally based. What plans do the Government have to discuss this concerning issue with Anthropic?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We take the security implications of frontier AI seriously. Through our AI Security Institute, we have world-leading expertise in this area and maintain continuous engagement with global technology leaders. For obvious reasons, I am not going to comment on the specifics of all those engagements, but, in order to stay ahead of evolving threats, businesses should act now to strengthen their online defences. The NSCS’s guidance outlines how to secure Cyber Essentials certification and patch vulnerabilities quickly. AI capabilities are moving fast, but strong fundamentals are still effective.
Britain’s Battery Future Report
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the recommendations in the UK Gigafactory Commission report Britain’s Battery Future, published on 21 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution to the commission and its report. A resilient domestic battery sector is essential to the future of our automotive industry, our energy security and our transition to net zero. The Government have demonstrated our commitment to support the UK’s battery and electric vehicle sectors in the modern industrial strategy, including the UK’s record commitment to battery research and development through the battery innovation programme.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Our major market is the EU, where shortly we must show that significant value in manufactured goods must originate here or in the EU. In the case of EVs, as the Minister will know, that is the battery. Does she agree, even having said what she has said, that we do not yet have the EV battery gigafactories on the scale we need? The commission on which I served made 10 recommendations. What is the Government’s response, in particular, to the urgent need to attract a major manufacturer to drive the economic incentives to put battery gigafactories in place before we are too late?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As the noble Baroness highlights, the UK understands the need for gigafactories. We have two gigafactories committed to delivering a combined 55 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. We largely agree with the thrust of the recommendations in the report. On the specific question of attracting another major OEM, led by my noble friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment, the Office for Investment and the department are engaging global EV manufacturers to invest further in the UK, and we are utilising our comprehensive support offer, including DRIVE35 and the battery innovation programme grants, as well as potential national wealth fund support, to proactively engage potential OEM investors.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned gigafactories, and we need to speed up the process of getting more gigafactories operational in the UK if we are not to miss out on investment and jobs. She also mentioned electric vehicles. The Labour Party manifesto did not include any road pricing measures, yet from 2028 we will have road pricing for electric vehicles and hybrids. Can the Minister tell the House whether she and her department are involved in any discussions across government on a further expansion of road pricing, perhaps to cover all vehicles on our roads?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are supporting the performance and efficacy of the ZEV mandate in the transition to additional electric vehicles on the roads and in line with our net-zero commitments. We are supporting that through a range of measures to support people to transition to zero-emission vehicles and to support the expansion of charging infrastructure. On the question of road pricing, let me follow up with the noble Lord and write to him on that question.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. High electricity prices feature strongly in the report as a barrier to investment. There is no easy fix here, but does the Minister agree that the Government need to take a more fundamental look at the electricity market, whether that involves market reform or system design, because prioritising cheap as well as clean electricity is fundamental to the future of industry and growth in the UK?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have set out in our Clean Power 2030 Action Plan a road to energy security, and to the clean power the country needs, to provide clean energy for the future as well as securing our energy independence. We have seen the importance of that in recent months. We have also taken steps to cut energy costs for industry, particularly in areas of the industrial strategy that are especially energy-intensive.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, what steps are the Government taking to secure a domestic supply chain for battery materials, to reduce our dependency on China?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The new critical minerals strategy sets out the ambition to meet 10% of the UK’s demand from domestic production and 20% from recycling, and no more than 60% of any critical mineral from a single country. For battery supply specifically, the ambition is to produce at least 50,000 tonnes of lithium in the UK in the next decade. The most recent round of battery innovation programme collective R&D grants have refunded recycling projects to fulfil these goals.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work she is doing on this subject. I want to draw attention, in my role as chancellor of Exeter University, to three things in the south-west that she might not be aware of. Agratas, in Somerset, is building the biggest EV battery plant; Altilium in Devon is recycling lithium in a dramatic way; and in Cornwall, lithium is being mined. Putting the whole cycle together, would the Minister like to visit the south-west—or send one of her officials to visit these plants—to see what it is doing on this important theme?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the role of the south-west. Last week, the Secretary of State announced during a visit to Agratas in Somerset a £380 million government grant, which will support the construction of one of Europe’s largest gigafactories, notably built using 100% British steel. But if I get the chance, I would very much like to take up his suggestion.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the developments that the Minister just spoke of and her Answer to my noble friend’s Question, it is clear that significant elements of battery vehicles will not be made in this country in time for the 2027 review of the rules of origin requirements, nor will they be there to meet the “Made in Europe” requirements which are likely to come in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what the Government are doing in advance of those negotiations to make sure that British electric cars will be able to be sold in the European Union?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of the EU as the largest market for UK-manufactured cars. The EU remains the UK automotive sector’s largest trading partner. We are talking closely with the EU on all aspects of regulatory developments in respect of EU battery rules, the EU digital battery passport and the “Made in Europe” content rules, because we want to continue to press the EU to avoid any detrimental impact on the UK and EU’s automotive sectors, given the integrated UK-EU supply chains.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Government’s EV mandates imposed an industry-crushing £6 billion-worth of costs on manufacturers in 2024 alone. This is putting the 183,000 jobs which this sector supports at considerable risk. If the Government want the EV transition to endure, surely, they must proceed at a pace that industry can bear. Is it not now time to reverse these mandates, as the Official Opposition, I am happy to confirm, are committed to doing? Can we not now bring industrial policy back in line with economic reality?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are monitoring the performance and efficacy of the ZEV mandate and last year we introduced additional flexibilities, providing manufacturers with more tools to decarbonise in a way that protects jobs and boosts investment. We have a large range of measures to support people to transition to zero-emission vehicles, including salary sacrifice schemes, generous company car tax rates for electric vehicles and the new electric car grant, as well as support for local EV infrastructure to support the transition.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, two-thirds of the world’s production of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UK produces no cobalt whatever, yet our EV manufacturing industry relies heavily upon cobalt. Cobalt is extracted in Africa using child labour, with damage to the water aquifer and a range of other environmental and political degradation. What steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that their cuts in ODA do not impact adversely on countries such as the DRC?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of battery supply chains and the challenges of potential forced labour exposure, particularly upstream, in raw material extraction and in refining stages. The UK is supporting international frameworks such as the UN guiding principles and the OECD guidelines so we can contribute our expertise in responsible mining and enable UK businesses to play a role in the development of global supply chains with strengthened due diligence.
Rail Freight
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving their target to increase rail freight volumes by 75 per cent by 2050.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government have a clear ambition for rail freight growth, with a target of 75% by 2050, and we continue to work collaboratively with freight operators and Network Rail. My department’s modal shift revenue support programme and Network Rail’s access charges discount policy have been hugely successful, awarding £39 million over two years to eight freight operators and supporting 19 new flows. We continue to progress the Railways Bill, which will enable GBR to further support rail freight growth with the first ever statutory target for growth.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is encouraging to hear the Minister repeat the Government’s commitment to that target, which they inherited, of course, from the previous Government and which we support. However, the rail freight industry is, I think, finding it increasingly unconvincing, because the Government have refused, so far at least, to put this target into the Bill which is currently in the other place. They are leaving it, in effect, to the discretion of Great British Railways, which will of course be in competition with the freight operators for the very same paths on the railway. Would the Government not like to strengthen this target by making it part of the statutory obligation imposed upon Great British Railways in the Bill?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government have been quite clear that setting a statutory target is in the Bill, and we have also been clear that it is 75%. In practice, that protects those freight paths that have been in the timetable for a long time but are not necessarily used other than at short notice. That is the reason for the proposed statutory inclusion in the Bill. For that reason, GBR will not be in competition for those paths. Those paths will have to be reserved in order to allow the target to be effective in the future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the issue of competition for rail freight. I am pleased to hear him say that the Government are keen to grow rail freight, but it is difficult to see, in the text of the Bill, how Great British Railways, which will have control of most passenger services as well as access to the track, will be able to treat fairly open access passenger operators and rail freight operators. Is this something on which the Government have consulted the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether there is any potential for conflicts of interest?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Railways Bill is framed to give Great British Railways the authority, for the first time in over 30 years, to control access to the railway and make sure that it is fairly distributed and serves the nation’s economic and social purposes. That is in Clause 60. Clause 63 talks about GBR operating passenger services. The reason that the freight target is specified in the Bill is so that GBR will have the obligation to leave both freight paths that are used in the timetable for freight trains and those paths that are not used but will be needed for the expansion of freight services and are needed at short notice to be used by freight operators.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what consideration are the Government giving to increasing the capacity at London Gateway, Britain’s second largest container port, by the electrification of just three miles of track to the port, which would allow for the use of faster electric locomotives for freight?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, will the Government speed up digital signalling and proper traffic information in the cab so that there can be more slots for all types of rail traffic, because obviously we want to expand rather more than the Government are suggesting in the short term?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
How right the noble Lord is. The digital signalling programme for the east coast main line does absolutely as he describes, which is to give more capacity on the existing track. It is in train, as far as I know; it is on target and on budget for the south end of the east coast main line. It is subscribed to by all the operators, including all the freight operators that use it. One of its principal objectives is to get more train paths out of the same railway.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a substantial move of freight on to the railways, we need to move to palletisation as opposed to containerisation as the principal unit that is used, and that to do that we need to construct proper freight villages in order to have the transfer that is necessary, and that without those infrastructure improvements we will not get to the target?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was a privilege for me to open the ninth Maritime Transport rail freight hub in Northampton about six weeks ago. I had a long discussion with John Williams, the chief executive, and we discussed precisely that. We were discussing how we should measure this, because tonnage is maybe not the best way of measuring container loads—in fact, the numbers of containers might be a better method of doing it, if we could find a way. The Government are very active in this, as am I personally. It is clear that intermodal container traffic, and indeed national container traffic, is the largest growth feature of this market and we should do everything we can to encourage it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are a number of existing barriers to rail freight, particularly between East Anglia, the port of Felixstowe, north Yorkshire and the rest of the north of England. One of the barriers is the urgent upgrade needed to Haughley junction. Does the Minister have a timetable for when that upgrade will be made?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There is no use upgrading Haughley junction without upgrading Ely. Previous Governments have not found the money to do that and, regrettably, in the financial circumstances that this Government find themselves, we have not so far found it either. But I have had some useful discussions with local Members of Parliament and the combined authority mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough about what we can do both to improve the business case for Haughley and Ely junctions and to reduce the cost. One of the crippling costs of that upgrade is the number of level crossings needed because East Anglia is very flat; there may be some things that local highway authorities can do which would make that project easier to do and give it a better business case in the future.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the secrets of growing rail freight is to increase the versatility of freight locomotives? In that context, will he welcome the development of tri-mode freight locomotives—electric, battery or diesel—so that they are able to run anywhere in the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend clearly knows a lot about it—probably more than I do—but I was at the launch of the Class 99 locomotives last autumn, which I think are the ones he is referring to. There are 30 being leased and operated through GB Railfreight, and he is right that they will be versatile to run anywhere. In fact, that may solve the issue at London Gateway port that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to, because if there were battery-electric locomotives then we would not need fixed electrification. It is right that the rail freight fleet needs to be updated. That investment is very welcome, and I expect it to be followed by investment by the other freight operators which believe that there is a long-term future in freight on the railway.
Nitrous Oxide
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the (1) extent, and (2) risks, of use of nitrous oxide gas by young people.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The use of nitrous oxide among those aged 16 to 24 in England and Wales decreased from an estimated 194,000 users in the year ending March 2024 to 80,000 users in the following year. That is the lowest since records began in 2013. The Government provide information to the public on the risks of using nitrous oxide, including on the drug information website Talk to FRANK. The risks of using nitrous oxide are severe.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. As he knows, it is illegal for anybody under 18 to purchase nitrous oxide, but there is a growing trend in our cities and towns where drug pushers buy dozens and dozens of cannisters of nitrous oxide and fill balloons with them to market and sell to young people. The cannisters are then dumped in parklands, grass spaces and back alleys, which is dangerous to the environment and particularly to young children. Do the Government have a strategy for dealing with this problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is a very real problem. The noble Lord will know that the legislation to ensure that we put nitrous oxide on the controlled list, passed in 2023, has reduced the level of usage as a whole. I am also pleased to report that in the year September 2024 to September 2025, there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date and some still outstanding for sentence. The Government’s strategy is to make sure we clamp down on this; it is not acceptable, and the legislation should be enforced. It is also very important that we have education for young people, particularly in schools.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, there are limited legitimate uses for nitrous oxide, yet the lawful supply of these cannisters has created an unlawful, harmful supply down stream. Will the Minister today commit to a review to establish the volume of nitrous oxide being sold and whether the benefits of the legitimate trade in fact outweigh the social cost of the unlawful trade that follows from it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord has mentioned, there are a number of legitimate uses for nitrous oxide: medical, dental and veterinary uses, food sector uses in cafés and for amateur bakers, as a fuel additive for motor racing and for academic research. The legislation passed under his Government has tried to get the balance right between legitimate and illegitimate use. As I said a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the number of convictions for illegal use and supply has increased significantly. That is an area the police are focused on. We keep all matters under review, but the legislation was passed only some three years ago and I think it is right that we let it take its course.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, it is very welcome that the rates of illegal use have gone down and convictions have gone up. But, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there can be a tension between young people seeking help or wanting to report a crime and a fear of prosecution when doing so? Can he ensure that there are ways to overcome that tension—perhaps through confidential helplines or specially designated teachers, police officers or social workers—ensuring that people can come forward for help or to report issues without fearing that they might be prosecuted?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is a very real tension that my noble friend mentions. It is important, particularly in a school or youth club context, that young people who see the use of nitrous oxide have an opportunity to talk to a teacher, parent or youth worker, both to understand the consequences of that use and to find mechanisms to help other young people stop using that product. We keep strongly under review a whole range of mechanisms. Both the Department for Education in England and the Department of Health look at information and support to young people to help meet the very objective that my noble friend has mentioned.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as the use of nitrous oxide involves the substance hitting the opioid receptors, as with heroin and other drugs, will the Government undertake education of young people in schools, for whom the addictive potential of all these substances is much higher than in the older population? Sometimes substances such as nitrous oxide are used by dealers as an inroad to begin to create an addiction and then to get people on to much more harmful substances after that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness strikes at the heart of this. The use of nitrous oxide is currently illegal under legislation passed by the previous Government. There have been convictions, but there needs to be both education and support to young people—particularly about the dangers, because nitrous oxide can lead to death at first use. It is also important that its addictive nature is put into education, lesson plans and other supportive material for parents, as well as for young people. It is something that we will certainly keep under review to meet the objectives that the noble Baroness has mentioned.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the White Paper on policing recognises the need for a strong national forensic service, but the issue will be how it keeps up with the huge number of drugs that are appearing on our streets—almost, it seems, on a daily basis. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the service has the staff, the technology and, crucially, the speed of testing required to support effective enforcement and to keep people safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentions the forensic service. It is really important that we keep that up to date. As she mentioned, under the policing White Paper we are having a review of how that is undertaken. It is extremely important, not just in this context but in the context of much more illegal drugs. Going back to the question from the noble Lord on the Front Bench, there are legal uses for nitrous oxide. The legislation is framed in such a way that those legal uses can be undertaken, but, at the same time, supply for improper use is controlled by legislation. The noble Baroness’s points about how we test and monitor that are extremely important.
Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance, if any, the UK has agreed to provide with mine clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, we continue to convene efforts towards restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is of vital importance to the UK. The Prime Minister will deliver an Oral Statement this afternoon following his trip to the region and will update on our latest work to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Royal Navy has a long history of mine-hunting expertise and has existing capabilities in the region. It is also stepping up its mine-hunting capabilities by adding new, cutting-edge, uncrewed equipment to RFA “Lyme Bay”, allowing it to be used as the mothership for autonomous systems if required. On 7 April, the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters convened a meeting with 30 nations to discuss freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz; and our military planning continues.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend the Minister that we must not let this war end with the Strait of Hormuz, a very important international waterway, being closed. It is in global interests and in our interest that this does not happen. We are very good at mine-hunting. Our—very badly funded at the moment—Navy is actually an expert at mine-hunting, which is very important. The Minister is probably aware that the bulk of the deepwater routes into and out of the Gulf actually go through Omani, not Iranian, waters. We are very close friends and allies with Oman. Can we not go ahead with talking to the Omanis and asking whether they would be happy for us to start making sure that the routes within their waters are clear? This is a step forward in the right direction, in which we can start moving, using the mine-hunting forces that my noble friend the Minister has mentioned.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He will know that the Government’s approach is to try to ensure that we bring together a co-ordinated, independent and multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends. Of course, considerations will be with all our different allies and friends within the region. This morning it was announced that we will co-host a summit with the French to work on that co-ordinated plan. No doubt, some of the points that my noble friend has made will be considered at that summit, as well as at a further meeting at PJHQ in the next few days.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, when President Trump triggered the war in the Middle East, the sole naval response by the UK, to protect significant British interests in the region, was to belatedly order a Type 45 destroyer, in maintenance in Portsmouth, to be made sea-ready. It departed on 10 March and reached Cyprus approximately two weeks later, then to go into dock some days later for short-term maintenance to repair the onboard water supply system. That has been our naval response. The Minister will agree that this is as extraordinary as it is embarrassing. Although the new frigates in the Clyde and the Forth, ordered by the last Conservative Government, will be an important augmentation to the Royal Navy, I ask the Minister: is HMS “Dragon” back in deployment, what other naval assets are currently sea-ready, what are the Government doing to accelerate sea-readiness of the remaining naval assets, and is the elusive—indeed, now evanescent—defence investment plan not now pointless, completely overtaken by events?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know my answer with respect to the defence investment plan. As I have said, it will be published in due course. HMS “Dragon” is available in the eastern Mediterranean and, as she says, is currently undergoing some limited work—but is still available with respect to its air defence weapons.
I pay tribute to the last Government for the 13 ships being built in Scotland and their importance. With respect to what the Government are doing with the mine-hunting capabilities in the region, in the Answer I gave my noble friend Lord West, I spoke about the autonomous mine-hunting capabilities that are already deployed there. The noble Baroness will know, because she is well aware of these things, that the hybrid Navy that the First Sea Lord wants will ensure that we not only have ships but that the mine-hunting capabilities of the future will involve much more the use of drones. That was why I made the point about RFA “Lyme Bay” being made a mothership from which drones can be used to tackle a mine threat, although no decision has been made to deploy that yet. That is also a way forward. Of course, ships are important, but there are many other ways mines can be tackled as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said how important it was to open up the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States is threatening a second blockade of the strait, surely that is going to make the situation much worse. What conversations are His Majesty’s Government having to try to ensure that our closest ally is not actually exacerbating the problem?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We always talk to the United States and continue to do so. The noble Baroness will know from the answers that have been given that we do not support the blockade, as proposed by the United States, and we are seeking other ways to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is why I have talked about the summit we will co-host with the French in the next few days, and why I have talked about the nations that will be invited to PJHQ to find a way that is internationally supported and co-ordinated and has the support of all regional allies, so that at the end of hostilities, we can reopen the Strait of Hormuz in a way that is sustainable and which will deliver the result we all want. Of course, we continue to talk to the United States. I make no apology for saying that the United States, whatever the current situation, remains a crucial ally of this country and in the development, peace and security of the world as we go forward.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Can the Minister give us some reaction from the Government to the legality, under international law, of the action being taken by Iran to impede passage through the strait? It does not belong half to Iran and half to the Omanis; it is a strait with international waters. Can he say what action will be taken and how this affects our own involvement in future?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord’s fundamental point is a good one. That is why the Government have consistently said that they will act in accordance with international law—and we call on all states to act in accordance with international law. I know that sometimes people find this frustrating, but what moral status would we have, when calling other nations to respect and to co-operate according to international law, if we ourselves do not respect it? This is the point that we are making: we will always act in accordance with international law, and we expect all other countries to do the same, not only in the Strait of Hormuz but anywhere in the world.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, agree with me that this is a very dire situation? I am not necessarily laying any blame at this Government’s door, but it is an awful situation where we do not have a single ship in the Middle East and we do not have any ships to send there. We are actually a rather sad Navy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his point about the Navy and the words he used will have been heard by everyone. The point that I am making in response is that, as we move forward, the question will be about not only the number of ships but the types of capabilities that we have to deal with the threats that we face. The Navy of the future will not be the Navy of today or of the past. That is why the conversion of RFA “Lyme Bay”—although I stress again that no decision has been taken to deploy it—in order for it to operate as a mothership for drones flying above, on or beneath the water, is a significant development. The noble Lord will see that the Navy of the future will include not only ships, submarines and other similar vessels but these types of developments—that is an important point that we all ought to grasp.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I commend my noble friend the Minister for his restraint in not pointing out to the Benches opposite that the lack of a surface fleet—and indeed of underwater vessels—is a result of a series of decisions taken not to invest in building, which has also had an impact on our shipyards. We are now making a recovery, but that cannot happen overnight.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The truth of the matter is that we of course need more ships, and investment is going into that now to produce the ships that we need. We are currently trying to maximise the use of the capabilities we have available to us to ensure that we deal with the problems and challenges we face—not only in the Middle East but across the world, as we recently saw in the North Sea and the High North. It is important, as we wait for these new ships to be delivered and the investment to go in, to ensure that we have the capabilities we need to deal with the threats we face.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I think I have heard the Minister remind us from the Dispatch Box that the pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz are working and carrying, apparently, 7 million or 8 million barrels a day—I had thought it was 4 million barrels a day. Will he and his colleagues, when they have general discussions, keep that in perspective? When you add that to the fact that 70% of the oil going through the Strait of Hormuz will not be stopped because it is either Iranian or comes from Iran’s friends—and when you add the release of more Russian oil and the increase of shale oil—we are back roughly where we started. While it is infuriating to have the rule of law on the seas threatened by Iranian bandits—which is what they are—and while it is a very serious defence point, it is not as dramatic an oil point as some people seem to be making out.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord has huge experience in this area, and he is right to point out that it is interesting to watch the way in which the pipeline that goes across Saudi Arabia into the Red Sea and comes out through the BAM is being used. That is another way of getting oil out; certainly, that is one of the ways in which the Saudis and others have tried to maintain the supply of oil. I am sure that, in the face of the current threat in the Strait of Hormuz, people will look to see how we ensure the delivery of the oil and fuel we need. At the end of the day, that Iran is illegally closing the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping is of concern to us all and must end as soon as possible.
Lord Peach (CB)
I take the Minister back to the Navy of the future and agree with the proposition. In the world we are in, do we not need the Navy of the future even more quickly? Do we not need a different approach to industry and innovation? Do we not need to move even more quickly to adopt the new technology that we know we need?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I totally agree with the noble and gallant Lord, and that is why I was at the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth last week, launching the growth deal. There I saw the small businesses that were developing the drone technology and drone capabilities that are needed. I know that the noble and gallant Lord is a big advocate of this. Of course, there is a role for the big primes and massive companies to develop these things, but there is a role for small and medium-sized businesses as well, which can act at the pace that the noble and gallant Lord is talking about. That is certainly something that we should encourage. When I was in Plymouth at the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, I emphasised that and it was very keen to adopt it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question, does the Minister believe that there are any—or exclusively—military means by which the strait can be fully opened and restored to the level of shipping that was there before the unlawful exercise of President Trump? Given that the only diplomatic efforts that are now taking place are exclusively between the United States and Iran, and that President Trump has said that the United States will work only in the US interests, how are we involved in any diplomatic effort to ensure the long-term, sustainable openness of the strait?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to the noble Lord’s noble friend, we continue to discuss these matters with the United States. Of course, diplomacy is an important part of any problem or conflict that occurs anywhere in the world. There have to be talks and discussions. We know how important that is. We will continue to have discussions with the United States about that.
As far as the UK Government are concerned, that is why the summit co-hosted by the UK and France in a few days is important. It will bring together countries from the region and across the world. That is why the summit will be convened at PJHQ—to bring countries together. We know that, on the solutions to conflict and the problems that occur, in the end, whatever military options are considered or undertaken, those discussions give you the long-term basis for the security that you want. For us, it is the long-term security of reopening the Strait of Hormuz in a way that allows freedom of navigation—without tolls.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Will the Minister accept that the problem that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy have is that they do not have a ship that has adequate defences against massive attack from either missiles or drones?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I take the noble Lord’s point with respect to that. My understanding is that many ships have capabilities to defend themselves. I am not a military expert with respect to some of these things, but I believe that capabilities are available. Certainly, as the ships of the future develop, they will develop to meet the technological threats that they face as well. Many of the threats that will come, whether on land or sea or in the air, will come from uncrewed technology, and we need to advance our own technologies to deal with that as well.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
1. That if—
(a) a High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session or in any subsequent Session of this Parliament, and
(b) proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in the Session in which the Bill is so brought (“Session A”),
further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session A ends until the Session that follows it (“Session B”).
2. That if, where paragraph 1 applies, a Bill in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stood when it was brought to this House in Session A is brought from the House of Commons in Session B—
(a) the proceedings on the Bill in Session B shall be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in Session A;
(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session A or in any relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session B;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in relation to the Bill in Session A shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session B; and
(d) if there is outstanding any petition deposited against the Bill in accordance with an order of the House—
(i) any such petition shall be taken to be deposited against the Bill in Session B and shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B; and
(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill in Session A shall stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in Session B.
3. That if, where paragraph 2 applies and Session B is a Session of this Parliament, the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session B—
(a) further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session B ends until the Session that follows it (“Session C”), and
(b) paragraph 2 shall apply as if—
(i) references to Session A were to Session B, and
(ii) references to Session B were to Session C.
4. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, if—
(a) Session C is a Session of this Parliament, and
(b) the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session C.
5. That paragraph 3 shall apply again, with the appropriate modifications, in relation to any Session of this Parliament subsequent to Session C, if the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in that subsequent Session.
6. In paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the references to a High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill include references to any Bill previously of that name but the name of which was amended by the House of Commons prior to the Bill being brought to this House.
7. In paragraphs 1 and 3 above, the references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 83A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
8. For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the Session in which the Bill is so brought.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:27 - Division on Amendment 197 - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 187 - Amendment 197 agreed.
17:42 - Division on Amendment 214 - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 214 agreed.
18:09 - Division on Amendment 217 - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 332 - Amendment 217 disagreed.
18:48 - Division on Amendment 218 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 231 - Amendment 218 disagreed.
19:00 - Division on Amendment 219 - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 173 - Amendment 219 disagreed.
19:24 - Division on Amendment 246 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 246 agreed.
21:30 - Division on Amendment 248D (to Amendment 248) - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 248D (to Amendment 248) disagreed.
21:44 - Division on Amendment 248 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 55 - Amendment 248 agreed.
23:10 - Division on Amendment 268 - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 117 - Amendment 268 disagreed.
23:22 - Division on Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280) - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 130 - Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280) disagreed.
23:45 - Division on Amendment 307 - Ayes: 27 / Noes: 89 - Amendment 307 disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before the first group of amendments is considered, I want to remind the House of the previous guidance on conduct during Report stage. This is the final day on Report, and proceedings on this Bill need to conclude today. I therefore urge all noble Lords to apply good discipline to ensure we can conclude business at a reasonable time. First, the House has generally resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and particularly relevant, the Companion states that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report. Contributions should not summarise or repeat points made at length by others, and debates must be relevant to the precise amendment being debated. Thirdly, although interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification, and lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. As this is Report, and not Committee, a continued collective focus on these points will help us to make progress.
Clause 57: Single tiers of local government
Amendment 187
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the first group of amendments in my name, which reflect the concerns that we have repeatedly expressed during the passage of this Bill about imposing top-down reorganisation of local government without local consent. Amendments 187 and 194 oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 outright. Schedule 26 as drafted enables the Secretary of State not just to invite but to “direct” local authorities to propose mergers of single tiers of local government. This throws into serious question whether the Bill does in fact enable community empowerment, or if it just gives the Secretary of State more power to bring councils into line with central government’s plans.
Many local people do not want their rural and urban areas to be merged under the same local government jurisdiction, or for councils which have been doing their jobs well and kept taxes low to be merged with other, less well-performing councils. Nor do they want to disaggregate district councils into pieces to suit the Government rather than the people, adding them to urban areas—in order to allow more greenfield development, we believe, and that again takes the pressure off use of brownfield.
Amendment 188 would remove “or direct”, allowing the Secretary of State only to make an invitation to local authorities. Amendment 189 would then require the express consent of all relevant authorities affected by the proposed reorganisation. Alongside the significance of local consent, it is important that democratic oversight of the changes occurs at national level too, and not just in the corridors of Whitehall. Amendment 190 would require the Secretary of State to show Parliament that any direction was in the interests of effective and convenient local government, while also representing the views of the affected authorities. Similarly, Amendment 191 would strengthen the requirement on the Secretary of State not only to believe that the direction was in the interests of local government but to be
“satisfied having regard to the views of affected authorities and local electors”.
We return to the point that we have made consistently throughout this process. Changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent. Can the Minister confirm whether the purpose of this legislation is truly to advance community empowerment? Can she also explain how these provisions will save taxpayers’ money, improve local service delivery and strengthen existing local geographic identities? These are questions that we will ask now and continue to ask as this project moves forward and this Bill becomes an Act. It is not clear why Schedule 26 has been drafted in this way, without stronger democratic safeguards. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on local government reorganisation. Before I comment on the amendments, I wonder if the House would indulge me for one moment so that I may pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham, who died during recess.
Jeremy Beecham’s passion for local government, his wisdom, kindness, fierce intelligence and sharp wit, as well as over 55 years of service to his community in Newcastle, with 17 years as leader of Newcastle City Council, made him a powerful and committed ambassador and advocate of local government, including when he came into your Lordships’ House. My thoughts are with his family, the people of Newcastle—to whom he committed a lifetime of service—and our local government community, where his legacy will be enduring and powerful. There was a wonderful levaya yesterday in Newcastle which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I attended, along with other Members of this House. I hope that Jeremy will rest in peace. May his memory be a blessing.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is very clear—stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to benefit from strong unitary—
Lord Fuller (Con)
Is the Minister winding? A number of us wish to get in as part of the debate. I would hate to cut her off, but I think there are some contributions to be made.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was my understanding that we had moved on to winding speeches.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I did not realise that we had moved on to winding speeches. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister said about the late Lord Beecham and add my condolences.
With the leave of the House, I would like to comment briefly on Amendment 187, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson. I support the intentions of their amendments, which seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to direct mergers of single tiers of local government to cases where all the local authorities concerned have given their consent. I strongly agree with that. Of their amendments, I prefer the two which are more far-reaching, Amendments 188 and 194, because the provision for local authorities to merge exists already. Clause 57 and Schedule 26 are there only to implement the power of the Secretary of State to enforce such mergers, without the consent of the authorities involved.
The addition proposed by Schedule 26 of the Bill to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 concerns a
“district or county council for an area for which there is currently a single tier of local government”.
I understand that a county council can be a single tier, but I cannot understand how a district council can be a single tier. I would observe that the Bill is concerned with mergers of principal authorities. Can the Minister tell your Lordships if it also provides for the dismemberment or breakdown of principal authorities into smaller units, such as is happening under the current local government reorganisation? This is seeing many counties being divided up into smaller unitary authorities, which will certainly result in a massive increase in costs, which will have to be borne by hard-pressed council tax payers.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in the strongest possible support of the amendments tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. I would like to make two introductory remarks.
First, I was the leader of a council for 20 years and had a ringside seat for LGR in my own area and as part of my chairmanship of the District Councils’ Network. I saw at first hand that, far from saving money, LGR has precipitated the bankruptcy of Somerset and in Yorkshire created a so-called local council spanning the whole width of England at that point, bar 9 miles, encompassing Skipton, Selby and Scarborough.
Secondly, I note that a lot has changed since we were in Committee. The Government have published their LGR proposals for Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire. The lofty ideals of strategic leadership, better value for money and economies of scale, together with the published criteria, which the public took at face value and responded to, have been dashed on the rocks of partisan gerrymandering. I do not know why I am surprised that the party that sought to rig the local government elections would seek to pervert the process as it has, but we can see what has happened here. The Labour authorities that connived with the Government to cancel the election on the flimsiest grounds—so weak the Government would not take their chances in the court—have been rewarded with small unitary councils designed to fail. The goalposts have been moved. That is why Amendments 189 and 191 in particular are so important. They would stop the abuse of process whereby the public, who play by one set of rules, are stymied by Ministers playing by another.
Let us compare what Ministers advertised in the current round of LGR against what has been delivered. It was said that LGR proposals should, in all but the most extenuating circumstances, respect and be based on existing councils as building blocks—themselves grounded in the historic county boroughs, Poor Law unions and ecclesiastical hundreds. There were good reasons for this. The Government are in a hurry, and easy building blocks make aggregation simpler, better value and quicker.
While there always might have been extenuating circumstances, perhaps to bring the awkward extremities of a national park within the ambit of a single unitary, we have been served by a gerrymander, where cities have been given the choicest parts of their neighbours, ignoring travel to work areas, breaking communities of interest and making the process more expensive, longer and disruptive at precisely the moment councils are meant to be delivering growth, not shuffling the deck chairs.
In the case of Norfolk, we see the announcement of a conversion of seven districts into three unitaries. It will not just merge seven into three, which will be hard enough as it is; in this proposal, which breaks up the existing councils as building blocks, we will see 14 disaggregations and weldings together in a cut and shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. Of course, the consequences of all that are only just becoming clearer: breaking long-term contracts for refuse collection, orphaning leisure centres and disrupting the local plan. There are unknowable permutations around allocating staff, who will need to think which of the 14 functional parts of our county, each of which delivers 136 council activities, they will need to stitch together contractually, financially and legally, and in terms of software and staffing, in just a few months without even being clear about the parishing in the former county boroughs. It is designed to fail.
People were told to propose new councils based around a population of at least half a million. We were told that was the economic optimum that combines scale with efficiency. I know we cannot be precious. Counties are not exactly in 500,000 increments. I would not have been surprised to see a 10% or 15% variation around that 500,000 figure—in other words, perhaps anywhere between 425,000 and 575,000. But we have been served a set of councils, many of which will see a population beginning with a “2” by as late as 2040— Condemned by design and scale to that special council death zone with populations similar to the existing unitary cohort that is in trouble in are places such as Swindon, Slough and Stoke. If that is what the Government had in mind, they should have been up front and open at the outset. It would have stopped the nods and winks to the counties that are clearly doomed but whose consent was required to endorse the mayoral elections.
The Government have acted dishonestly in their dealing on this. They have said one thing and done another. They have abused their position and spoken with forked tongue. They told us it would strengthen democracy. I led South Norfolk Council for nearly 20 years. Norwich is to be inflated like a balloon, but not by so much that Labour’s client vote will be diluted. A few wealthy parishes will be peeled off here and there to pay off the city’s historic debts without regard to the rump authority left behind. Labour’s unthinking approach has been that the rest of the countryside can go hang.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Forgive me for interrupting. The noble Lord is giving us a lot of very interesting information, but we are on Report and I just wonder how much more he has to give us.
Lord Fuller (Con)
The answer is not very much. I am getting to the nub of the point.
The Government have said one thing and done another. That is an important legal point, because in 2007 when they tried to use these same provisions that they now seek to rely on under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Mr Justice Ouseley, in his judgment in January 2010, found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had changed the decision-making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said:
“the Secretary of State set out repeatedly the basis upon which he would refuse proposals, and without any warning adopted a wholly different approach, and reached decisions which, on the original approach, he would not have reached. … On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State … made a mockery of the consultation process”.
This amendment would stop the jiggery-pokery and the changing and moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today. Furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits alongside a full plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man on the street, which included a full statement of the total forecast cost to the council tax payer had not been done—and of course it has not been done. Our counties, subject to LGR in this round, are being pushed into a financial leap in the dark—brought to you by the same people who told the nation that business rates would not be put up for pubs.
I hope that my learned friends run the rule, following the 2010 judgments by Justice Ousley and Justice Cranston as a guide, but it is now clear that the Government never intended to follow the rules and have not even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man’s land of councils being too small to be big or too big to be small. We were promised better than this. I strongly support the amendments because we have seen gerrymandering in this process. That is not good enough, and these amendments would prevent it happening in future. I hope councils do not waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because they sorely need to.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there were an awful lot of questions there for the Minister to answer. It would be better for the House if she responds to them, in particular to the nub of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
I hope the Minister will not mind if I pay tribute to the late Lord Beecham. He was a councillor in Newcastle for 55 years, 17 of which were as leader of the council. He was the first chair of the Local Government Association. I spent a number of years as leader of the opposition to Jeremy when he was leader of the council, and we enjoyed sparring, as indeed we continued to do after 2010 across the Floor of this Chamber. He was a new broom in the late 1970s in the era after T Dan Smith. He was young. He created the social services department. He fought an unrelenting battle against poverty, creating a welfare rights service in Newcastle, but he also understood the importance of growth in the city. We discovered yesterday—I did not know—that he convinced the Chancellor that there should be bus passes for older and younger people; I am particularly pleased about that.
I know that Jeremy’s family have appreciated the large number of tributes that have been paid to him nationally, locally and in the media. There is a book about what he did in those 55 years—there is a copy in the Library and, I think, in the Government Whips’ Office—to which I was privileged to contribute chapter 2. It is an interesting work on the history of local government over the past 40 years. I add my tribute to Jeremy’s huge contribution to Newcastle and to the country as a whole.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments. Indeed, we learned about the bus pass yesterday, for which I am eternally grateful, as was my dad, who loved his bus pass. That was just another of Jeremy’s achievements that many who knew him did not know about.
As I have said before, this Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to be able to benefit from strong unitary councils. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is a powerful advocate of this from her time in Wiltshire. In response to her specific questions, value for money and the strengthening of geographic identity came out very clearly in the submissions made by local authorities in response to the call for proposals for new local government structures.
On the community empowerment side of the noble Baroness’s questions, the neighbourhood governance proposals we have set out in the Bill will provide the most powerful basis for community empowerment in a generation. I look forward to further discussion about them, and we will provide further regulation to set out exactly how that will work.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I am not going to go into all the details of the Norfolk process but it was extremely rigorous. Locally submitted proposals were considered very carefully against the clear criteria that had been set. We have always said that the 50,000 population limit was a guideline, not a hard line that had to be met. When we looked at the proposals, it was clear that we needed to be flexible on that in some areas. We made our decisions against the criteria, and they are now back with the priority programme areas for them to have a look at.
We are not seeking to force reorganisation on areas. The power to direct councils to submit a proposal for reorganisation will be held in reserve and exercised only where an area has been unable to make progress in response to an invitation. Instead, the Bill creates a new route for unitary councils to be invited to submit proposals for merging with neighbouring councils. This will align with the existing reorganisation process for two-tier areas and ensure a consistent approach. As devolution and local government reorganisation progress simultaneously in some parts of the country, it is important that we have tools that allow these processes to operate smoothly and effectively. Without the power to convert a combined county authority to a combined authority for the purpose of implementing a proposal for the establishment of new unitary councils, there would be no efficient way to maintain the effective operation of existing devolved bodies where reorganisation proposals are also being implemented.
The power to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority is tightly constrained. It provides a necessary safeguard so that where a reorganisation proposal would make a strategic authority redundant, that proposal can proceed and the strategic authority can be dissolved accordingly. I stress that any proposal that might require the use of this power must first be assessed for its implications for future devolution in line with the Government’s reorganisation criteria. This will ensure that areas are not left without a viable route to secure devolution arrangements. I hope that with these points in mind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these Benches also align with everything that has been said about the great Lord Beecham. I wrote down a number of things to say, but it has all been said. He was a hero in local government. When I became a new young councillor, his was the one name that I was always a bit scared of, to tell your Lordships the honest truth. We from these Benches send our thoughts to his family and all his friends. May his memory be a blessing.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller. I know he spoke for a long time, but he was explaining what has happened on the ground from local government reorganisation that started even before the Bill has finished its passage through Parliament. It is important that we hear what is happening on the ground. I happen to live in Norfolk at the moment, and I can tell noble Lords it has gone down like a lead balloon there. We are where we are and Norfolk will make it work, because that is what most local authorities do, but it certainly does not reflect what I hear from local people as to what they wanted or expected.
As I have said, our concerns with Schedule 26 reflect our wider concern about the true purpose of the Bill and its impact on local communities. As drafted, it shifts the balance of power in favour of the Secretary of State rather than local people when it comes to their local government and their services. This is contrary to the aims of a Bill titled “community empowerment”. Local government reorganisation should genuinely have the consent of all the parties it affects, in consultation with the local communities they are elected to represent. We are not here to try to frustrate reform. As the Minister said, I am an advocate of unitary authorities. I led one for 10 years and I led it into a unitary, but that was with the people of Wiltshire all the way through.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment of this provision in my name would limit the regulation-making power conferred by the new section 11A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. They would remove the ability to amend Acts other than the 2007 Act.
“but it does not include an Act other than this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment of this provision in my name would limit the regulation-making power conferred by the new section 11A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. They would remove the ability to amend Acts other than the 2007 Act.
Baroness Pinnock
“Duty to review parish and town councils(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils in England to assess their number, functions, and effectiveness in local governance.(2) In carrying out that duty, the Secretary of State must, in particular, take steps to ensure maximal geographical coverage of parish and town councils as a form of local democratic representation. (3) The Secretary of State must, annually, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), including any action taken or proposed to achieve the purpose in subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils and take steps to maximise their geographical coverage, with an annual report to Parliament.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments neatly follows the previous group as it concerns further empowerment to be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 in my name would ensure that Governments had a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils, and would require an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding that democratic footprint.
The creation of large unitary authorities by the Government, as we have just heard, resulted in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focused on the narrow remit of being the service delivery arm of national government—for instance, the delivery of adult and children’s social care, which constitutes three-quarters of a budget of a unitary council. The focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide.
My own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority that serves 450,000 people supports that view, hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, a small town or even a suburb of a large town. A failure to do so will result in people being disfranchised and more remote from decision-making at a large local level. They will feel that their voice does not count, and that is a danger for our democratic institutions.
Those of us who care about local democracy care that people’s voices are heard. Amendment 196 follows that, because it would create a statutory duty to consult. Where parish and town councils have been created or exist, under this amendment the local authorities would have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications, parks and open spaces and other very local services and amenities.
Amendment 196 says that a local authority must—I stress the word “must”—have regard to the representations from those councils before a final decision is reached. Consultation has become rather a dirty word in local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box indicating that local people have had a say, and then it is disregarded. This amendment would make it statutory. People would have to listen and take note of representations.
In supporting these amendments we would ensure that the promise of community empowerment in the Bill is a reality. So I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that we can give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 216 and 318 in this group, which relate to parish and town councils. Amendment 216 makes provision for unparished electors in the unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by Clause 60 to petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept-raising parish councils. Separately, my Amendment 318 applies to the largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part district billing authorities before, but which henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.
I turn first to Amendment 216. In Committee the penny dropped for the first time that those parts of England that were former county boroughs—20% of the land mass, so much greater by population—such as Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage, which is home to the Minister, would be for the most part unparished, and thus second-class citizens in the new arrangements. That is recognised by Amendment 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely. I have no problem with it. But I think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the right for unparished areas to become parishes if the measures in Clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory.
The Government tell us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops, with no resources, capacity or status. This is what we discovered in Committee. People literally from out of town will try to sweep up the crumbs left over, once social care has feasted on the precept, to find what money is left to sweep the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two-thirds of the precept, what resources will those toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do, with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.
I make no apologies for talking about Norfolk. There are 900 parishes there, and some 10,000 nationally. But when Labour gets its way, 20% of England will be disfranchised and have no parish at all—no money or say, for the most part, in how England is run. That includes the whole of Ipswich, for example, or Oxford. The so-called strategic authorities and the mayor are not going to be interested in the carnival floats, the local antique street market, the food festival or those local culture groups that town and parish councils spawn. The civic life of town mayors will evaporate altogether, with their soft convening and ribbon-cutting powers. No, they will go the way of the local pub, the park café and the high streets, in the vandalisation of high-street Britain.
Do not talk to us about Pride in Place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life, with the sheriff and the burgesses, that illuminates our nation’s story. No, under the dismal and undemocratic Clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards—the budget, the representation and the staff—to hold everyone else over a barrel, because there is no parish council. Of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either, and all the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.
My amendment offers hope to these places: to reject the way in which the Bill creates sock-puppet sinecures for out-of-town councillors from miles away. Where an appointed community council is established, those residents can petition to incorporate—creating the empowerment that the Bill purports to foster and encourage—to create a town or parish council with proper elections, a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, so as not to rely on cast-offs after the social care monster, LGR costs, the recast debts and pension fund liabilities have eaten the rest. I want to help people make their part of England better: more local, more responsive and more accountable. My amendments give hope for democracy for these places, including the cathedral cities, coastal communities and new towns—places such as Stevenage and, for the other part, Gorleston, from where I take my territorial designation, within the historic county borough of Great Yarmouth.
I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and may signal my intention to divide the House on this. The requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.
Moving on to council tax for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities and districts may become parishes under the new arrangements—or perhaps not, if my Amendment 216 is carried. By charging council tax where they have been districts, they have been able to benefit from formula grant, redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there is a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast-offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost-shunt. Parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped on to these parishes. They will need to find space in their precept to pay for them, but they will be on their own because they will have no central support and will be living hand to mouth.
My noble friend Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax under Salisbury City Council is up 44% in just four years and its band D is £383. In my own district, South Norfolk, where I am a councillor, we collect the bins, clean the streets, house the homeless and have built a new generation of housing for just 180 quid—less than half of the parish. The problem with the Bill is that it lumps tiny little Howe, a hamlet of 50 souls in my own ward, in with the village of Hempnall, where next week we will welcome a new vicar, the Reverend Austin Uzoigwe—gosh, I should have practised this—and which has perhaps 1,000 people, together with Horsham, a district of 146,000. In law, all places of 50 to 150,000 will be equivalent. That is crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham, but the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.
My amendment would create a new sub-class of third-tier authority where there is a population of 50,000 or where the precept exceeds £1 million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. I do not want your Lordships to think that this is anti-town or anti-parish. In fact, it is quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb and create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to the parishes. My amendments would strengthen parishes’ hand in the negotiations, as part of LGR, so that they will be able to push back and say no. If they think they cannot afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they would not have to take them on.
I am seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability by putting the largest parishes on a proper financial footing, so that they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This is not a dig at parishes; they do a lot of valuable work at the level closest to the people. With this amendment, I have their back, as it would stop those councils with the broadest shoulders imposing liabilities and cast-offs on those with the most limited means.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I looked last night at Labour’s 2024 manifesto and would like to quote, extremely briefly, a few phrases from it. It said:
“Labour is committed to strengthening our democracy”.
It attacked the Conservatives for failing to encourage
“full participation in our democracy”
and said that Labour was committed to encouraging such participation in our democracy and to increasing
“the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy”.
If we do not have local councils and local elections, we have no way of increasing participation, of gaining a real sense of active citizenship or of encouraging the sort of people many of us are now going around to talk to in schools, who will have the vote for the first time. This is why local councils, throughout the country, are extremely important in maintaining and strengthening the sense that every citizen in this country can take some part in public life.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I shall be living through the reality that my noble friend Lord Fuller has just outlined: in Eastbourne, we will be completely unparished. The people have been consulted and, having listened to my noble friend beforehand, decided that they do not want an unlimited precept in a town of 150,000, thank you very much. The proposals for smaller parishes, based on wards which have been designed to be equal in population and nothing to do with the actual community boundaries, really do not work. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her amendment, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, but I would add that people must have a usable mechanism to decide what the boundaries of their parish should be. This must be a local conversation, and there must be options and support for that debate. It should not be something that is imposed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock for making most of the points that I would have liked to make myself, so, given the need to move on, I will try to be brief.
This Bill is about English devolution and, in practice, decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. There is actually very little community empowerment as proposed, because powers are going to move upwards from Whitehall to mayors, and therefore mayors will simply get increasingly important. I have tried twice to convince the Government to devolve powers from mayors to local authorities with an annual review, and from local authorities to town and parish councils, which are closer to local people and, crucially, closer to local taxpayers—but so far, to no avail.
This is a fundamental group and my name appears on several of the amendments. There are huge dangers in the Government’s planned changes to local government, not least, as we have heard, that decision-making will get more remote from people as local authorities get larger. Town and parish councils have neighbourhood expertise and knowledge, and that must not be lost in the upwards drift of decision-making. Neighbourhood area committees should have mandatory representation from town and parish councils; they must not duplicate existing structures or behave as if town and parish councils do not exist.
The Bill as it stands appears to remove a right which is currently held by parishes under Section 293G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. I am advised that this is what is about to happen. This is a serious omission. Parish councils are responsible for neighbourhood development plans, which are part of the statutory planning framework, and to omit parishes is to disregard and marginalise neighbourhood development plans. I understand that Ministers have said that they do not wish to do that, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention and tell us further what the Government might do about it. It will not be enough simply to consult parish councils; it should be for planning authorities, which are going to be highly centralised, to act fully on any matters of local knowledge and experience that parish councils highlight.
I am looking for the Minister’s assurance that the Government understand what they are doing in terms of the powers of town and parish councils. I think that they need empowerment. All the amendments in this group are justified, including a number in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, which I support. Governments must strengthen the role of town and parish councils, given the large councils that the Government seem intent on creating. There must be meaningful involvement with parish and town councils, and neighbourhood-level decision-making in planning needs to be protected. I hope that weight is going to be given by the Government in the Bill to the crucial role that town and parish councils can perform. If there are any amendments in this group on which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would be minded to test the opinion of the House, she would have our support.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. It is an extremely important group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling her amendments and, as always, making the eloquent case for them. These Benches are united with the Liberal Democrat Benches in wanting to see an expansion of parish and town councils, as well as a strengthening of their role in local government. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, it is much more important now than ever.
We have brought Amendment 213 in my name forward from Committee, with the support of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to secure the role of town and parish councils within what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. As we have said previously, town and parish councils are the closest to local people, with unique insight into their needs and wishes. The Minister said in Committee that there ought to be more flexibility to design neighbourhood governance, but these are long-established, familiar and democratically elected bodies which deserve more of a role in the Bill. That said, I appreciate that the Minister has verbally recognised the crucial work that parish and town councils do for their communities.
This brings me on to my Amendment 214 to encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas through existing processes and supportive guidance for principal authorities. If the Government are serious about valuing the work of town and parish councils, why do they oppose this amendment? It would require the Secretary of State to develop a strategy for parish governance for unparished areas in England, including the issuing of guidance on how to identify areas where this might be most appropriate, as well as examples of best practice when it comes to establishing those town and parish councils.
I do not believe that town and parish council governance has a proper place in the Bill. We believe this to be a balanced amendment to provide a reasonable way forward. If I do not hear the right decision to move forward from the Government, I intend to divide the House on Amendment 214. But I hope that the Minister will see, or has seen, the merits of this amendment and that we can rely on the support of not just noble Lords across this House but, perhaps, the Government.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Lucas and Lord Shipley, who have spoken on these issues.
I will begin with Amendment 195. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that both the Government and I understand and value the very important role that parish councils across England play in their communities, and we recognise that this amendment is seeking to ensure that their effectiveness is maximised. However, I reject the amendment’s implicit assumption that central government knows best about the ideal coverage and role of town and parish councils in every local area. Through the community governance review process, local authorities are already empowered to evaluate parishing arrangements in their area. These are locally led and responsive to communities’ priorities, and they ensure that new town and parish councils are created only where there is a genuine local appetite. I hope that that responds to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of localism: local authorities are best placed to understand and respond to the needs of their communities regarding the creation of new town and parish councils, and to make decisions on how best to support these councils where they already exist.
I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 196, which seeks to ensure that where they exist, local authorities take into account the views of town and parish councils in their area. I recognise that given their proximity to their communities, as all noble Lords have said, town and parish councils are well placed to understand the priorities of their communities. They can therefore offer deeply valuable insight to principal local authorities when designing services and making decisions that affect their area. We want to see good partnership working between local authorities and town and parish councils to help ensure that decisions made about their areas reflect the priorities of their communities.
However, the wide-ranging duty to undertake consultation with town and parish councils on any decision which may affect their area would create an unnecessary bureaucracy that would restrict the ability of local authorities to make effective decisions in their area. The approach to mandating consultation is at odds with effective partnership working. It would create an excessive administrative burden for local authorities, leading in turn to further financial burdens for local taxpayers.
On Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, let me be clear: the Government really value the role of town and parish councils; where they exist, they play an absolutely vital role in local democracy and in championing the priorities of their communities. I therefore appreciate that the intent behind this amendment is to make sure that their role is reinforced through the new duty on local authorities to have in place effective neighbourhood governance arrangements. I reassure the noble Baroness that town and parish councils already have statutory functions and powers under existing legislation, and nothing in Clause 60 seeks to remove or diminish these; this amendment is not needed to retain their role and function.
However, requiring neighbourhood governance structures to strengthen the role of town and parish councils over other models of community partnership would constrain local choice; it would remove flexibility for places to design neighbourhood governance arrangements which will work in their areas and match their own local requirements. In its aim to strengthen local engagement, neighbourhood governance will ensure that all communities, whether or not they are served by a town or parish council, have effective ways to influence the decisions that matter to them in their local area.
On Amendment 214, the Government understand and value the important role of parish councils. However, as I mentioned in response to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, through community governance reviews, there is already a process in place by which local authorities can evaluate parishing arrangements for their area. I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of local autonomy and that local authorities should come to decisions independently and based on the priorities of their communities.
I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to ensure that where local authorities are making neighbourhood governance arrangements, they consult and engage with town and parish councils. I recognise the valuable role that town and parish councils play in local democracy and service delivery, and I want to be clear that the neighbourhood governance duty we are introducing aims to complement the work of these councils. We expect local authorities to work with existing organisations in their communities, including with town and parish councils, in delivering effective neighbourhood governance.
However, in introducing statutory requirements to formally consult town and parish councils in their area regarding neighbourhood governance arrangements, this amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy that would hinder the ability of local authorities to develop locally tailored approaches. We absolutely welcome and encourage collaboration between principal local authorities and town and parish councils. But for central government to dictate how this happens in local areas would be counterproductive to true partnership working.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased that we have had this debate on this group of amendments about parish and town councils, but I am very disappointed in her response. She cited the community governance review as an example of how more parish or town councils can be created, but this depends on the local authority wanting town and parish councils to be created. If—as in my own council, currently doing a community governance review—they do it in a lowest possible key, then, guess what, there is not much of a response. This is why it is important that the national Government take responsibility for all our local democracy by encouraging it rather than doing it diminuendo. Town and parish councils are important, and they become more important as large unitaries are created.
We will not be dividing on Amendment 195 or Amendment 196. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, there is agreement in principle between us that this layer of very local councils is important. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is likely to divide the House on Amendment 214, and if she does, we on these Benches will support her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I shall speak also to Amendment 212 in my name. I should say at the outset that, unless the Minister can give a very convincing response about the rights of a local authority and local people to adopt a committee system if they want to in their governance structure, I am minded to divide the House. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who spoke on the value of a committee system in Committee. It has proved very popular and successful in Sheffield, and in other places. Basically, my case is that it is for local people to decide the governance structure that they should have, as indeed they have done very successfully in Sheffield.
The Bill, as I keep repeating, is about devolution and community empowerment. So, I ask the Minister: why can a community and its local authority not decide for themselves their own model of local democracy? It is surely for the people who pay taxes to that authority to make a decision about the governance structure that runs their local area. That is a quite fundamental issue for me. It is not for central Governments to make those decisions; it is for local people.
I was very surprised when I first read—well, each time I read—the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill’s Explanatory Notes. In paragraph 98 on page 23, I found the argument very surprising. It is, in essence, a set of assertions by the Government that:
“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities, particularly the larger, unitary councils. It suffers from more opaque and potentially siloed decision making, a lack of clear leadership and accountability, with decisions taking longer to be arrived at”.
At previous stages of the Bill, I have asked the Minister for the evidence base on which that statement in paragraph 98 has been written. Where is the research that tells us that about a committee system, which is apparently very successful in a number of places—notably Sheffield, where the people decided to reintroduce a committee system? How does anyone know in London that a committee system is a less effective form of governance? Is it not for local people to make that decision? Anyway, might the Government consider that the quality of decision-making where the decision has been reached by a committee might be better than where it has been taken within the leader and cabinet model, when many fewer people are involved in it?
For those who may be less familiar with the number of committees I am talking about, I should say that these are committees on housing, the environment, social care, economic development, transport, and so on. It is about whether you have a number of people, cross-party, working on a specific area of governance, or whether you have individuals making decisions.
I think we get more considered decisions from a committee structure. The scrutiny system that underpins the leader and cabinet model comes after the event—it comments afterwards on whether something is successful—but a committee is assessing policy proposals before they have been agreed. Since the committee system was invented under the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, it has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together and engaging all elected councillors in the decision-making processes of their local authority.
If anyone has any doubt as to whether a committee system is a good thing, we just need to look at ourselves: we operate a committee system when a Bill goes through your Lordships’ House. Imagine what it would be like if there had not been a Committee for this or any other Bill. I submit that having a committee structure can lead to better decisions. I accept that it can be slower—sometimes, too many people may be felt to get involved in an issue—but I think democracy is enhanced when that happens. I also believe that the quality of decisions by a committee is generally better. At its heart, it is not for central government to control the decisions of local areas on the governance model that they prefer. We have to trust the people better than the Government seem to want to do. For that reason, I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support every word that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. This amendment is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. I point out the title of the Bill we are debating: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. So many of its clauses actually remove responsibility from lower parts of our governing system. I really urge the Government to see clearly that this would be a sensible move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, particularly given my noble friend Lord Shipley’s comments on Sheffield. I found it ironic that in Committee we were talking about not allowing others to have a committee when we in your Lordships’ House have Committee stages.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the title of the Bill is about community empowerment. I am about to finish my 20-odd years on Sheffield City Council in the next fortnight, having joined in 2004. When I and my good friend—my noble friend Lord Scriven, who is sitting next to me—took control of the council in 2008, it was under a strong leader model. I remember my noble friend saying that a test of whether we have been successful is to ask: do we have the same amount of power when leaving as we had when we inherited the role? That was because we were about devolving powers. At that time, we set up a committee system to devolve down to what we called community assemblies. That was about devolving power down to a local level and taking it out of our hands: my noble friend Lord Scriven was the council leader and I was the cabinet member for parks, the countryside et cetera. We genuinely believed that local decision-making was far better.
Looking at this Bill, I am surprised that we think we should centralise power and that Whitehall should tell all councils that there is only one governance model. If we do that, I think we will end up in the situation that Sheffield was in. Since the Committee debate in the Lords, a plaque has gone up at Sheffield City Council:
“In recognition of the courageous campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council, and as a reminder to all that such failures in leadership must never happen again”.
That happened under a strong leader model. Out of 84 councillors, just 10 people picked by the leader at the time—
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
Not my noble friend Lord Scriven; it was the leader at the time. They basically rammed through decisions to fell healthy street trees. It took thousands upon thousands of signatures for an inquiry to ultimately find that they went wrong.
It was said that there was scrutiny, but the problem was, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Shipley and others, that scrutiny looks at decisions already made. When you have such a powerful executive on a council, the scrutiny boards were often chaired by the same ruling group. If you wanted to keep that job, you were never going to take on your leader.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, which goes to the heart of what we mean by devolution and local choice.
On this side of the House, we believe in democracy and devolution. Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises the fundamental question: do we truly trust local authorities to determine the governance arrangements that best serve their communities? This is not a radical approach. Rather, it is rooted in the simple, democratic principle that decisions about how councils are run should, wherever possible, be made locally and not prescribed from the centre.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other noble Lords extolled the virtues of the committee system, and we can debate whether that is the best system. I was the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, and we very successfully ran a leader and cabinet model. The fundamental principle underlying all this is that this should be a local decision involving local residents. That is why the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to reinforce an equally important principle: respect for local residents. Where a community has chosen through referendum to adopt or retain a particular governance model, it cannot be right for that decision to be set aside without further direct consent.
Amendments 198 and 200 in particular are designed to ensure that where a referendum has taken place, its outcome cannot be overridden. If we are to ask the public to engage in these decisions, we must be prepared to honour the result.
Similarly, the amendments adjusting the relevant time periods from one year to three years are not about obstruction; they are about stability. Constant churn in governance structures serves neither councils nor the communities they represent. A longer period allows new arrangements to bed in, to be properly assessed and to deliver for residents.
Taken together, these amendments and Amendment 197 form a coherent and principled case, one that champions democracy, devolution and stability in governance. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, presses his amendment, we are minded to support it. If the Bill is to live up to its title of community empowerment, it must do more than devolve powers in name only; it must embody a genuine trust for local towns, cities, rural areas and the people they serve.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I would like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey, Lord Faulks, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their constructive engagement during the Committee debate on the requirement for local authorities to publish notice of any proposed change to their governance arrangements. I think these issues have been debated for the whole of the 30 years that I have been in local government, and I am sure they will continue to be so.
Following that debate, the Government have reflected carefully and brought forward government Amendments 210 and 211. Together, these amendments will maintain the current requirement and align the policy with the Government’s recent commitments set out in the Local Media Action Plan, published last month. As part of that plan, a wider review of all statutory notices will be carried out by the Government to explore whether action is needed to better ensure that communities have access to journalistic scrutiny of local decision-making. To ensure that government policy on statutory notices is developed coherently and consistently, we will maintain the current requirement in this specific area, and in order to allow the review to determine the best long-term approach. This will ensure alignment with the Government’s wider work on the role of statutory notices and local media, rather than pre-empting any decisions that are properly a matter for that broader review.
Turning to Amendments 197 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the issues the noble Lord has raised were explored in some detail in Grand Committee, and the Government’s position remains unchanged. Clause 59 and Schedule 27 are intended to promote greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. At present, arrangements vary significantly, which can make it harder for residents to understand who is responsible for decisions and how accountability operates. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government continue to favour executive models of governance. In our view, the leader and cabinet model, now used by more than 80% of councils, offers clearer leadership, stronger accountability and more streamlined decision-making. Certainly, when my own authority moved to that model, it did all those things.
On scrutiny, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of course, councils can use their overview and scrutiny committees for pre-scrutiny of decision-making if they wish. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, all decisions of cabinet in the leader and cabinet model are subject to review by scrutiny. We also know that good practice suggests that overview and scrutiny should not be chaired by the ruling party. I know that many authorities do not operate that system, but that is recommended as good practice.
The experience of individual councils helps to illustrate why this matters. When Cheshire East moved to a committee system in 2021, a Local Government Association corporate peer challenge found that the resulting structure was extensive and meeting- heavy, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving almost the entire membership of the council. That same review also highlighted ongoing difficulties with co-ordination, pointing to a siloed organisational culture and weak joint working across departments, which in turn affected service delivery and internal communication.
There are also examples of councils that have trialled committee arrangements and subsequently concluded that they were not delivering the intended benefits. Brighton and Hove’s decision to return to a leader and cabinet model in 2024 is a recent case in point. Repeated structural change of this kind is costly, disruptive and not in the interests of effective local leadership. Finally, where decision-making is dispersed across multiple committees, it can become less clear where responsibility ultimately sits. In my work as a peer reviewer, as I was for the LGA for many years, that was certainly my experience. It was less clear where the responsibility ultimately sat in most councils with complicated systems.
I turn now to Amendments 198 to 209, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government cannot accept these amendments as they run contrary to our aim of promoting greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. However, where the Government do agree with the noble Baroness is on the case for treating differently councils that have adopted the committee system more recently. As your Lordships will know, where a local authority has adopted the committee system following a council resolution or a public referendum, there is generally a moratorium on making a further governance change for a period of five and 10 years respectively, under the Local Government Act 2000.
Where local electors or councillors have voted proactively to adopt the committee system, following a public referendum or council resolution respectively, it is reasonable that they should expect those arrangements to remain in place for the duration of those so-called moratorium periods. The Government have therefore provided in this Bill for protections from the requirement to move to the leader and cabinet governance model for those councils that are currently operating a committee system and are still within their statutory moratorium period. This includes Sheffield City Council, Bristol City Council and the Isle of Wight Council. These councils will be protected from the requirement to change governance models for the duration of their current moratorium period. At the end of this period, they will be required to undertake and publish a review, setting out whether they intend to move to a leader and cabinet executive and, if not, why they consider the committee system to be an appropriate form of governance for their local authority, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in their area.
The Government believe that a one-year decision period provides sufficient time for a council to carry out the necessary work to support that assessment and to pass any resolution needed to continue operating the committee system. This is comparable with the time allowed in existing legislation when moving to or from a non-mayoral model, which provides by default for the change to take place at the next annual meeting of the council. Protected committee councils will also have the remainder of their protected moratorium periods to prepare for this review.
Separately, all new councils established as part of the local government reorganisation will be required to adopt the leader and cabinet model. For all other councils not subject to these committee system protections, the Bill requires a move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant provision in Schedule 27 coming into force. Here again, the Government believe that a one-year period provides sufficient time to allow for a smooth and orderly transition, in line with equivalent statutory processes, enabling councils to undertake all necessary preparatory work.
For all these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I commend government Amendments 210 and 211 to the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lord, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for reminding the House that the Government have agreed that three councils— Sheffield, Bristol and the Isle of Wight—can stay with the committee system temporarily. However, I remind the House that we are talking here of only three councils.
This is a simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it central government or local people? I submit that it is a matter for local people to decide what is best for their area. For that reason, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the House has agreed Amendment 197 to leave out Clause 59. Clause 59 introduced Schedule 27. Amendments 198 to 211 are amendments to Schedule 27. I remind the House that our Standing Order 46 says:
“An amendment to a bill must not be inconsistent with a previous decision given on the same stage of the bill”.
It would perhaps be helpful for me to add that Amendment 212 would leave out Schedule 27. I understand that, as Amendment 197 has been agreed to, the Government will not oppose Amendment 212, so Schedule 27 will be removed from the Bill. Noble Lords may wish to bear this in mind in considering Amendments 198 to 211.
Schedule 27: Local authority governance and executives
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Promotion of parish governance(1) The Secretary of State must develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England, particularly for areas that are currently unparished. (2) In carrying out this duty, the Secretary of State must—(a) issue guidance to principal authorities on identifying areas where a community governance review may be appropriate,(b) encourage principal authorities to consider establishing parish or town councils where doing so would strengthen neighbourhood representation and community engagement, and(c) publish information and examples of best practice on the establishment and operation of parish and town councils.(3) Principal authorities must act in accordance with guidance issued under subsection (2) when exercising their functions under Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. (4) In preparing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including representatives of parish and town councils.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas by promoting the use of existing community governance review processes and supporting principal authorities to consider the creation of parish or town councils where appropriate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I was really disappointed with the response from the Minister to my amendment. All that it asked was for the Government to promote parish governance and to support principal authorities to consider the creation of town and parish councils where appropriate. We did not get anything positive from the Minister. Therefore, I wish to divide the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the voting system for five types of local government election to the alternative vote. Currently, Clause 61 and Schedule 28 changes the voting system from first past the post to the supplementary vote. This amendment is connected to others to Schedule 28 in the name of Lord Pack.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the Bill proposes to replace first past the post for some of our elections with the supplementary vote, which is a step forward, but it is not a great step forward, which is why I propose Amendment 217, along with the consequential Amendments 226 to 241, to replace the supplementary vote with the alternative vote. Having the right system in place for mayors matters all the more with the Government’s vision for more mayors with more powers. That makes this the right moment further to improve their democratic accountability.
For single-member vacancies, such as for mayors, and indeed for police and crime commissioners, both first past the post and the supplementary vote rely in part on voters being able confidently to predict who will finish in the top two in a contest and therefore being able, if they wish, to cast a tactical vote, in effect, under first past the post, or with the supplementary vote being able to cast a second preference that has a chance of actually counting.
The problem is that in the multiparty world we are in, one populated as well by many independent candidates, neither of those systems is well suited for our politics. The reality with the supplementary vote is that often people cast a first preference for someone who does not make it into the top two and a second preference for someone who also does not make it into the top two and therefore end up impotent. It is as if the voter had only first past the post to use.
That is not a rare or theoretical problem. It is a widespread one that we have seen repeatedly with the previous use of the supplementary vote in England. I referred at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage to research by the Make Votes Matter coalition carried out a couple of years ago covering 217 elections conducted under the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that more than half—54%—of people’s second preferences that were due to come into play after the first round had to be discarded because they were not for a candidate who made it into the top two. That research note is for elections using the SV since 2000. For many of those years, we had fewer large and medium-sized parties jostling for contention than we do now. Even in those more favourable circumstances in the past for the supplementary vote—those more favourable circumstances for people successfully to second-guess who would be in the top two—more than half of all second preferences, correctly filled out on the ballot paper and that should have been used, none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the top two. That is quite simply a flaw with the supplementary vote.
It also runs counter to what the Minister said in February in Committee, that
“the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 173.]
Alas, discarding more than half of secondary preferences in the way that I talked about does not sit at all well with that aim of a broad base of support among electors. So often, for so many voters, supplementary vote ends up being the same as first past the post.
It is not only in local government elections for mayors in England that voters suffer from the limitations of first past the post; hence my other amendment in this group calling for the use of the single transferable vote. As well as its use in Northern Ireland, STV has been used successfully for nearly 20 years for local government elections in Scotland. As I suspect we may hear from some noble Lords opposing STV, I point out that it is used in Scotland with broad support across different parties, including those parties that oppose its introduction for local elections in England. I hope that, mindful of the widespread acceptance across the political spectrum of STV in Scotland for local elections and of its successful use over such a long period of time, perhaps noble Lords will consider that if it is good enough for Scotland, if it works in Scotland, why not have it in England as well?
I return to mayors. We are in a political world of more candidates, more parties and more confusion over who is going to end up in the top two, and that is why the alternative vote, not the supplementary vote, is the right voting system. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, different voting systems have different advantages and disadvantages. As the Minister knows, first past the post is simple and allows the winner to be representative of all those who voted for them and of those who did not. It reduces the chance of minority-led, unstable Administrations. It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats did better at the previous general election under first past the post than they would have done under a proportional system.
The Bill seeks to change first past the post in mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections to the supplementary vote system. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, argues that in a multiparty contest, the alternative vote system is fairer, but I think there are stronger arguments for retaining the system overwhelmingly preferred by the public, as shown in the 2011 referendum. I do not think there is much evidence that views have changed dramatically on this question since then. Besides, the alternative vote system is not used for any elections in the United Kingdom, as the Minister pointed out in Committee.
I think it is undesirable to have many different electoral systems for different elections, so I support my noble friends in their Amendments 218 and 242 to retain first past the post. As my noble friend Lady Scott said in Committee, moving to a supplementary vote system would add complexity, increase the chances of confusion and risk more ballots being rejected. Besides, I am a bit puzzled about the application of these amendments to PCC elections because I thought the Government were going to abolish PCC elections and replace elected commissioners with those appointed by mayors, at least in mayoral strategic authorities. Can the Minister explain when she expects the last elected police and crime commissioner to leave office?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I will speak in favour of Amendment 217 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pack, who has set out clearly why it is so important to have the right voting system in place for mayors, given the growing powers that they have and will have in the future. Democratic accountability is really important.
As one of a handful of Members of this House who have run for Mayor of London, I want to highlight the impact of the supplementary vote system on the London mayoral elections. I thank the Electoral Reform Society for its figures. In the London mayoral elections in 2000, 2004 and 2021, the winning candidate received 36% to 40% of first preferences. Between 11 and 20 candidates were standing and, as we have seen, the number keeps going up. We have calculated that if we remove people who used their second preference for the same candidate, which happens, or those who chose a candidate already in the top two so their vote would not transfer, around half of valid second-preference votes were non-transferable, so basically wasted, in each of these London mayoral elections. Their second preferences were non-transferable as they had been cast for candidates who did not make the top two. In each of these elections, hundreds of thousands of votes were wasted—between 49% and 53%—and a mayor was elected without the majority support that we all desire.
That is why I fully support Amendment 217 bringing in the alternative vote for mayoral elections, which would mean that every vote and transfer will genuinely count. We would be able to engage communities far more in these elections. It is a better system to ensure genuine democracy in action.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I note the dedication of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to this issue, but he will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support him on this group of amendments. The issue of electoral reform has been debated time and again. I do not believe it would be appropriate to insert these significant provisions in this Bill now. Our position on these Benches has been consistent in favour of first past the post as the preferred voting system.
As my noble friend Lord Trenchard highlighted, in 2011 a UK-wide referendum was held and 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal to introduce alternative vote. That result cannot be ignored. I recognise that this referendum was with regard to the voting system for Members of Parliament in the other place, but there is no basis to simply assume that there would be a majority in favour of AV if it had focused solely on local elections, or indeed a majority in favour of a supplementary voting system for councillors. Voters clearly stated their preference for first past the post, and it would be inappropriate to ignore them through amendments to this Bill now. I appreciate our differences on this issue, but I urge noble Lords to think carefully before supporting these amendments, regardless of their personal preferences for electoral reform.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this group of amendments. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic and I respect his great knowledge and expertise.
We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially for single executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is precisely for this reason that we are planning to reintroduce the supplementary vote system for these polls. This system has a proven history of successfully meeting the needs of the electorate and is well understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the referendum that was held in 2011 with regard to parliamentary elections. I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come—I do not think it is going to go away—but it is true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about our devolved Administrations, the voting system used for elections to devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of those devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. For historical reasons the single transferable vote has been used for local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is appropriate for different voting systems to be used for different polls, but we believe that the supplementary vote is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors.
I noted the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the elections for police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I have not had a definitive answer, but I assume that we are putting in the provision for PCC elections in case a by-election needs to be held between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time those posts will go. We therefore do not support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank noble Lords for this short but succinct and apposite debate. As several have said, this is a long-running topic of discussion that I am sure we will return to on occasions in the future. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but given that reference was made to whether the supplementary vote or the alternative vote might be too confusing for people, I simply point out that the single transferable vote, which is a more complicated ballot paper than either a supplementary or an alternative vote, is used successfully without a problem by voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I certainly would not want to suggest in any way that if people in Scotland and Northern Ireland can manage it, somehow voters in England would not be up to the task.
We have rehearsed the main arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in particular, had some apposite comments about the practical experience we have of how problematic the supplementary vote can be when it is used in London. Given the importance of the democratic point, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This removes the provisions which re-introduce the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group covers three substantive issues: supplementary voting for the election of mayors, election delays and flexible voting pilots.
On supplementary voting, the Conservative Party has long supported first past the post, which allows voters to vote out top politicians who do not deliver, both locally and nationally. We introduced it for the mayoral elections; that was a manifesto commitment in our 2017 manifesto, and we recommitted to first past the post in our 2019 manifesto and our 2024 manifesto. We are committed to maintaining that important link with the local voter, and we stand by our changes to mayoral voting, which had manifesto backing. In contrast, Labour’s proposals on supplementary voting for mayoral elections are not backed by manifesto commitment. Therefore, we do not support this reintroduction of supplementary voting, and we intend to test the opinion of the House at the conclusion of this debate.
The amendments on flexible voting challenge the Government on the parliamentary procedure that will follow if Ministers seek to roll out flexible voting. We are clear that flexible voting must not be rolled out without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point in her response.
The important issue of local election delays has been a topic of deep controversy over the last year, and it has caused enormous problems within local government particularly. I am very pleased that, in the face of campaigning by those on this side of the House, the Prime Minister chose to U-turn on plans to deny millions of people a vote this May. It is right that those elections are now going ahead, but we must not get into a place where this can ever happen again. My Amendment 220 would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying any local government elections by more than one year, if the delay resulted from local government reorganisation. That is the right approach, and I thank the Minister for her engagement on this. I am pleased that the Government have listened to our case and have tabled their own Amendment 218A, which delivers the same legislative outcomes as our Conservative amendment. This is an important achievement, and we support the Government’s Amendment 218A.
Before I conclude, I should briefly mention Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which we have considered carefully. I think the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have much the same concerns as we do about local election delays. But we do not agree that Amendment 219 is a workable proposal. We believe that the principle behind government Amendment 218A is the right one, and we will support that amendment to prevent future denials of local democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Pack (LD)
We have discussed the issue of the Government’s power to cancel elections several times, and as has already been mentioned, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Government have responded, with their plans being put forward in this group. However, for reasons I shall set out, I do not believe they go far enough, which is why I wish to speak to my Amendments 219 and 222 in this group. Given where everyone’s views currently appear to stand, I shall concentrate on Amendment 219 and simply note that Amendment 222 perhaps offers an alternative route to address some of the points raised previously by noble Lords, if that would find favour.
The reason for my amendments, and why I would suggest they are preferable to the Government’s new plans, is that there is an important point of principle here. It is that Governments should fit their plans around people’s democratic rights, rather than mess around with people’s democratic rights in order to fit them around the Government’s plans. Democracy, in that sense, should come first.
Although the Government’s amendment in this group would absolutely be a step forward from the status quo, it still would, alas, leave many steps not taken. The full protection of primary legislation should be required to axe a scheduled polling day or, as Amendment 222 offers, only in very tightly constrained circumstances should it be done by secondary legislation. Parliament can legislate, at pace if needed, due to a crisis that requires elections to be put off, but primary legislation means full scrutiny. It means the ability to make amendments, the ability to probe neglected consequences properly, and the knowledge that the Government, to get their measure through, have to be supported not only in the Commons but in this House.
We have seen in other countries how quickly people can lose what were thought to be very basic democratic norms. Our democracy should have full legislative protection for our elections, because there is a fundamental weakness in relying on secondary legislation, as do both the Government’s amendment and the amendments proposed by noble Lords in the Conservative Party.
With such secondary legislation we run into the difficulty that on a point of principle, which we can leave to debate another time, whichever of Labour or the Conservatives is in opposition in this House, those parties are committed not to support fatal Motions on secondary legislation. Any Government therefore know that however controversial their proposal on a piece of secondary legislation is, this House will almost never oppose it. That is a fundamental problem: if the idea of the safeguard is a piece of secondary legislation and that safeguard is also one that the two largest groups in this House are essentially committed never to using, it is not much of a safeguard at all.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, of course, I support all the points on elections made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, but they focus on council elections and LGR, ignoring the simple truth that local mayors, as in my Amendment 225, and police and crime commissioners, in my Amendment 224, are also part of that local government landscape. My amendments would bring the mayors and PCCs into scope of the wider changes that the Government have been dragged to Parliament to repent.
Democracy is important. We know that; we sit in the mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who represent them, in pursuance of better lives and all those other things that the state should provide. That consent lasts until the next election, but I concede—this is where I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, on his Amendment 219—that there may be some quite exceptional circumstances, perhaps because of war, where a delay, subject to parliamentary consent, of course, would be justified. In those circumstances, my amendment would ensure that the powers existed on the statute book for a two-step super-affirmative process, where permission must be sought and received from both Houses and then only an affirmative resolution would be laid before the House. In the circumstance of war, for example, there would be some much more important things to sort out than passing a Bill to cancel local government elections.
I do not go entirely against what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, but, to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Scott from the Front Bench, I think it is unworkable. My amendments would remedy those matters but, in any event, my resolutions would be to cancel the elections no less than three months before the date of publication for that election, simply so that parties and individuals could have enough time to prepare the manifestos, select candidates, raise funds and address all those practical points. My amendments would ensure that preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choice clearly on the ballot, with lots of notice—not just for the councils, but for the mayors and PCCs—without hog-tying Parliament to pass primary legislation when super-affirmative secondary legislation can achieve the same outcome more quickly, more cheaply and in the right way.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I want to say one thing in response to this group and will try not to repeat anything that anybody has said. I am very puzzled by the Conservative Party’s stance on our first past the post electoral system. I think it has passed its use-by date. It is hopelessly out of date and inappropriate for candidates to be elected, as will happen a great deal in the local elections coming up, with less than 30% of the vote. Candidates who get elected and are then trusted to spend public money should have the confidence of a much larger number of people at the poll. To count on a system which is simply about the person who comes top in that ballot, when that could be on between 25% and 30% of the poll, seems totally out of date these days given the multi-party system that we now have.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments on elections. I will begin by discussing the government amendments in this group.
The history of reorganisation under the previous Government, as now, has taught us that the process typically gives rise to circumstances where there are strong reasons for postponement. Early on in the process, postponement can release vital capacity, as well as avoid the cost and disruption of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished. Later on in the process, structural changes orders provide for elections to new councils and avoid the confusion and waste of resources on parallel elections for councillors who would serve terms of less than 11 months.
The reorganisation process is not always predictable. For this reason, the Secretary of State’s flexibility to consider such an important question at each relevant point during the process should not be constrained by an arbitrary number. It must be considered on the particular merits of the question at that moment. The length of postponement will, of course, always be a consideration but should not be the sole consideration.
The Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the amendments that had been tabled at this stage and the concerns raised, and that is exactly what we have done. We have tabled an amendment that would prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. Our amendments achieve the same aim as Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but within the requirements of legislative drafting.
I will set out in more detail shortly why the Government cannot agree the amendments tabled by your Lordships. We consider that it would be wholly disproportionate to remove the powers entirely or to be overprescriptive as to their use. However, the Government have listened to and understand your Lordships’ concerns about the use of powers to postpone elections to a council undergoing local government reorganisation for more than one year. We have heard, in particular, the concern that multiple delays to elections can reduce the democratic mandate of councillors. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which I will move in due course.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 219 and for his continued engagement on this issue. The amendment before us would significantly restrict the Government’s ability to change the year of local elections by requiring such changes to be made through primary legislation, except in very narrow circumstances. The amendment would require councils which are to be abolished in the current round of reorganisation to hold elections to seats that would be abolished less than 11 months later. This is because the current reorganisations are proceeding under existing powers rather than under the local government reorganisation, which will be enabled under or by virtue of this Bill, including amendments to existing legislation, as required by subsection (2)(b)(i).
The restrictions also rule out the use of powers in any other context, including, of particular concern, best value interventions in failing councils. These interventions require speed and agility. It is simply not proportionate to require primary legislation to implement the recommendations of statutory inspectors or commissioners. The Government fully appreciate that noble Lords have concerns about the postponement of elections. That is why we have introduced government Amendment 218A, which I have already explained.
Turning now to Amendment 220, I first reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement on this issue. I know I have said this before, but it is an important point: the Government’s position remains that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise, and I hope that government Amendment 196A means that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendment.
Amendment 222 offers a disproportionate response to the concerns we have heard. In many time-sensitive situations, such as best-value interventions, primary legislation would simply be impractical. Even the narrow circumstances where secondary legislation would be permitted are over-prescribed. It would not, for instance, be possible to align parish council elections with those of newly created councils without fresh primary legislation. The resulting stand-alone elections would be at the expense of those parish councils, both financially and in terms of turnout.
The amendment does not define “local government election”. This creates an unhelpful ambiguity with regard to the use of the power to change a council’s scheme of elections, which necessarily involves changing the timing of council elections and has been critical to some best-value interventions. I gently remind the noble Lord of the well-established constitutional principle that a Parliament should not seek to bind its successors, which the final provision appears to attempt to do. In the light of these arguments and the Government’s own more proportionate and practical amendment, I hope he will feel able not to press his amendment.
I reiterate the Government’s position that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. That said, there have been and will continue to be exceptional circumstances where that high bar is met, in the context of government intervention in councils failing the best-value duty as well as during reorganisation. This is why Parliament has on many separate occasions granted the Secretary of State powers to act if and when the need arises. We have reflected very carefully on our debates on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for such legislation. The Government’s priority is to ensure that arbitrary deadlines do not prevent the flexible use of these powers where this is essential, while of course meeting the concerns that have been expressed. The super-affirmative procedure is unsuited to statutory instruments, which implement a simple yes/no decision. There will be no meaningful recommendations that a committee could make as to the drafting of such legislation, beyond agreement or disagreement with the Secretary of State’s decision to change the timing of an election. It is sufficient that this question be considered once by each House under the affirmative procedure, as the Government are proposing with our amendment.
I remind noble Lords that last year, the Government announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished at the end of their current term of office in 2028, and that police and crime commissioner functions will be transferred to mayors wherever possible, or to local leaders. There will be no further ordinary elections of PCCs, and legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. The provision in the Bill is to allow for the situation where a by-election may occur before 2028.
Turning now to Amendments 218 and 242, I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government’s priority is to equip mayors with the means and the authority they need to drive the growth and ambition of their areas. These leaders will be responsible for serving millions of residents and overseeing budgets worth many millions of pounds. Elections for these important roles must be built on a system the public can trust. After the May 2026 elections, the Bill will return mayoral and PCC contests to the supplementary vote system, ensuring clear accountability and a stronger personal mandate for those elected. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions.
Turning to Amendment 221, the Government are committed to improving participation in our democracy. To support this goal, we must continue to ensure that our democratic processes keep pace with technology and with the way people live their lives. The ability to test innovative electoral procedures in real polling environments, understand how voters use them and gather robust data on what works well is crucial. The power given to the Secretary of State to make pilot orders allows for a level of flexibility and working at pace in what is often a shifting landscape of local election timetables and technological advances. The legislation requires that at all times, pilots are designed and delivered in collaboration with the relevant local authorities. The Electoral Commission also has a statutory duty to evaluate pilots following their conclusion. There are therefore sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that pilots remain safe and secure and do not impact on the security or efficacy of the elections during which they are delivered.
The purpose of this amendment is to require such pilot orders to be made by an affirmative statutory instrument. This would add considerably to the timeline and severely impact the ability for electoral pilots to be delivered flexibly and at pace. The amendment would also repeal the Secretary of State’s order-making power to apply piloted procedures to other local government elections. Let me reassure noble Lords that there is already sufficient parliamentary scrutiny if we decide to roll out piloted changes at local elections—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, specifically asked me about this—as any changes must be made via affirmative secondary legislation. However, there is a strong precedent for keeping voting rules consistent across different election types unless the specific election specifically supports a different process, so we would be more likely to roll out changes to UK parliamentary elections at the same time, and this would require primary legislation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for her useful response on flexible voting. It is right that the Government have committed to proper parliamentary scrutiny, but we may return to the issue of flexible voting when we consider the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before the other place.
We are pleased to have secured an important concession on local election delays in the form of government Amendment 218A. That is a good step forward that will safeguard local democracy for the future. That said, I am afraid I have not been able to achieve consensus on my Amendment 218. We on these Benches agree with the Minister that the first past the post voting system maintains a strong link with local voters and allows local people to vote out politicians who are not delivering. That is why I have not been convinced by the arguments I have heard in response to my amendment, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation(1) An election timing order (the “invalid order”) has no effect if—(a) the order relates to an election of councillors of an English principal council (the “affected election”), (b) the order is made for a reason which relates to a process of local government reorganisation affecting that council (the “reorganisation process”), whether that process is proposed or has begun at the time when the order is made, and(c) the order would delay the affected election by more than 53 weeks.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “process of local government reorganisation affecting” an English principal council means—(i) the Secretary of State giving that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007, or(ii) the Local Government Boundary Commission making a recommendation for a boundary change relating to that council to the Secretary of State under section 8 of LGPIHA 2007;(b) it does not matter if the reason which relates to the reorganisation process is the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made;(c) the circumstances in which a process of local government reorganisation affecting a council “is proposed” include circumstances in which the Secretary of State has notified the council that the Secretary of State might give that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007;(d) an election timing order delays an election by more than 53 weeks if, as a result of the order, the election would take place after the end of the period of 53 weeks beginning with the original election date;(e) it does not matter if the delay by more than 53 weeks would result—(i) solely from the invalid order, or(ii) from the cumulative effect of the invalid order and one or more previous related election timing orders;(f) an election timing order is to be regarded as delaying the affected election even if the election would not actually take place on the date to which it is delayed because of the eventual outcome of the reorganisation process.(3) In this section—“election timing order” means an order under—(a) section 87 of LGA 2000 (power to change years in which elections held),(b) section 7 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of proposals by order), or(c) section 10 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of recommendations by order);“English principal council” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a district council, or(c) a London borough council;“original election date” means the date on which the affected election would have been held, ignoring the effect of—(a) the invalid order, and(b) any previous related election timing order;“previous related election timing order” means an election timing order which—(a) delays the affected election,(b) was made for a reason which relates to the reorganisation process (whether that was the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made), and(c) was made before the invalid order.” Member's explanatory statement
This would prevent elections of English principal councils from being delayed by SI for more than 53 weeks for reasons which relate to a process of local government reorganisation under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
“Restriction on powers to change years of local elections(1) In the Local Government Act 2000, for section 87 (power to change years in which elections held) substitute—“87 Restriction on changing years of ordinary elections(1) The years in which ordinary elections of any local authority councillors or mayors are held may be changed only by an Act of Parliament.(2) No provision may be made under this Act enabling the Secretary of State or any other person to change the years in which ordinary elections of councillors are to be held by order, regulations or other delegated legislation.”(2) In section 88 (separate power to make incidental provisions) omit “or 87” in both places it occurs.(3) In the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in section 50 (ordinary elections), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) An order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of Police and Crime Commissioners would otherwise be held.”(4) In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007—(a) in section 7 (implementation of proposals by order), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority or mayors would otherwise be held.”;(b) in section 10 (implementation of recommendations by order), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority would otherwise be held.”.(5) Any existing power in any other enactment which permits the Secretary of State by order or regulations to change the year in which a local government election is held shall cease to have effect in relation to that power.(6) Any Act whose effect shall include or solely be the changing of the years in which ordinary elections of councillors, mayors, or Police and Crime Commissioners are to be held, shall not be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, unless and until the Secretary of State has—(a) made a statement to both Houses of Parliament certifying that due regard has been given to the impact of the proposed change on the administration and costs of any other elections or referendums scheduled to be held on the same day, (b) made such relevant financial provision as is necessary to ensure that parish councils, town councils, or other smaller authorities do not incur additional financial liabilities resulting from the loss of cost-sharing arrangements with the cancelled or postponed election, and(c) laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the arrangements for ensuring that the democratic mandate of any authority not subject to the change is not undermined by the administrative separation of the polls.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the years in which ordinary elections for local councillors, mayors, and Police and Crime Commissioners are held can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.
Lord Pack (LD)
The Minister described this amendment as one that would significantly restrict the powers of Ministers, which I agree with. The question is obviously whether that restriction is a good idea or not. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on the matter.
“ChapterGrants to joint committees of London councilsPower to pay grant to joint committees of London councilsAfter section 32 of the Local Government Act 2003 insert—“32A Power to pay grant to joint committees of London councils(1) A Minister of the Crown may pay a grant to an eligible London joint committee towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred—(a) by the committee, or(b) by an eligible sub-committee of the committee.(2) The amount of a grant under this section and the manner of its payment are to be such as the person paying it may determine.(3) A grant under this section may be paid on such conditions as the person paying it may determine.(4) Conditions under subsection (3) may, in particular, include—(a) provision as to the use of the grant;(b) provision as to circumstances in which the whole or part of the grant must be repaid.(5) Where a Minister of the Crown wishes to pay a grant towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by an eligible London joint committee or an eligible sub-committee, the Secretary of State may pay a grant under this section to one or more persons (other than the committee) to hold and use in respect of the expenditure by the committee or sub-committee.(6) The powers under this section are exercisable with the consent of the Treasury.(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) make provision for determining the question of whether a committee, or sub-committee, is “eligible”, including provision about conditions that must be met for a committee or sub-committee to become or remain eligible;(b) make provision about the constitution, procedures, administration and oversight of London joint committees, or their sub-committees, that are eligible.(8) Regulations under subsection (7)(a) may (in particular) make provision about conditions that relate to— (a) the power under which, or way in which, the committee or sub-committee is established;(b) the functions or purpose of the committee or sub-committee;(c) the kinds of persons who are members of the committee or sub-committee;(d) the constitution, procedures, administration or oversight of the committee or sub-committee.(9) Regulations under subsection (7) may amend any Act passed before, or in the same session as, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.(10) No regulations under subsection (7) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether containing them alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(11) In this section—“eligible” has the meaning determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (7)(a);“London joint committee” means a joint committee established under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 by—(a) all the London borough councils, and(b) the Common Council of the City of London.””Member's explanatory statement
This would enable UK Government ministers to pay grants to joint committees of all the London boroughs and the City of London.
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to speak briefly on this revised amendment, which I have brought back from Committee. At the outset, I would like to echo the words of the Minister on the loss of Lord Beecham, who was a very charming colleague and a very hard-working and assiduous Member of this House. He will be missed, but his legacy, as the noble Baroness said, lives on.
In response to the amendment in Committee, I was delighted to get such warm and encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. He accepted entirely the issues of sparsity of population and distances to travel, and the introduction of combined authorities in counties such as North Yorkshire has compounded them. I took great encouragement from this response to the amendment, and it is why I have sought to echo the wording used by the noble Lord. I would like to quote from his comments. He said:
“The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise … engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format … Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 183]
Well, this is the time; this is the place, and this is the legislative opportunity. I am completely baffled as to why the Government are not seizing this opportunity, having responded formally to the consultation last year, to grab this issue and enshrine it in statute. Parliamentary time permits this today, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look favourably on this new Amendment 244.
This Bill, on English devolution and community empowerment, is the right time to implement such legislation. I would like to understand from the noble Baroness why in the Government’s view this is not the appropriate legislation to introduce what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so eloquently set out in his response to my amendment in Committee. I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to commit to this amendment. Were they not to, will the noble Baroness confirm that such legislation will be announced in the King’s Speech? I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. I recognise my noble friend Lady O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and many others from those Covid conversations, including the Minister.
Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Who could not remember Jackie from Cheshire, who had no authority, but she still managed to press the “off” button for the chap who was needling her? Some councillors—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—fell asleep in Covid. I saw some clips on YouTube where others had gone to the toilet or left to shower or where children bumbled in, but for all those mishaps, by and large, it worked pretty well. So, yes, it can work.
In Committee, I found it difficult to support all the various remote working amendments. They were widely drawn and somewhat nebulous, but I am very taken with my noble friend’s Amendment 244 because it constrains it to certain circumstances that encourage participation and engagement, that limit it to those cases with disability, bad weather and other emergencies, which could happen—foot and mouth, war. I am also persuaded by the amendment because we need to recognise that in local government there are different types of meeting, each with different consequences and purposes. Yes, there is the full council meeting where everyone gets together, and it is important that everyone has their vote. There are executive meetings, like cabinet meetings, and there are scrutiny meetings which are not executive but sit on the other side of the scrutiny/executive divide. Then there are policy formation committees which are not for decision-making, are part of scrutiny but do not often vote. So we have the distinction between what is decision or non-decision-making. And then there is quasi-judicial planning and licensing. In-person attendance is really important for those; the decisions taken in those meetings carry the weight of law. This amendment allows for all that texture to be captured and limited so we have the best of both worlds. As I say, I favour it.
Also, we need to recognise that local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly the need to travel more, particularly in the large authorities such as North Yorkshire, home to my noble friend. There are more combined authority meetings. Upon the passage of this Bill, there will be an even greater need for people on a much wider canvas to come together more frequently over long distances. One has to account for, and allow for, remote meetings in some of those circumstances. In my own authority, we have trading companies where councils, which may not necessarily be neighbours, club together at arm’s length. They are not the council, but they are owned by the council. We have to take that into consideration too.
On that last point, we cannot just leave this to the councils alone. In the case of a trading company, with these regulations, what would happen if one council in the partnership permitted remote meetings and the others did not? How on earth would that work? Having the sort of regulations contemplated by my noble friend is therefore really important.
This is a big improvement on the proposals that came forward for Committee. They are now capable of going forward. I support them, especially with the affirmative safeguards proposed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment, and to all noble Lords—well, my noble friend Lord Fuller—who have contributed to the debate.
We recognise the intention behind this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, I look at many faces in 3D here, having seen them in 2D on a screen during Covid. Flexibility is important in exceptional circumstances, and when those exceptional circumstances arose, we had the powers for remote meetings. But we are not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They are not simply an administrative exercise; they are forums for debate, scrutiny and accountability, conducted in public and rooted in the communities they serve. There is real value in councillors being physically present, in engaging directly with one another, officers and members of the public.
We are also mindful that existing arrangements already allow for a degree of flexibility in truly exceptional circumstances. Moving more routinely to remote or hybrid meetings risks diminishing the quality of debate, weakening transparency and weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her usual thoughtful submission of the amendment and her moving of it. This is an important issue about how local authorities conduct their meetings, and the Government, as the noble Baroness will know, are very sympathetic to the aim of her amendment, that local authorities should have the flexibility to hold meetings online where it is appropriate to do so.
The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.
Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.
We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. On behalf of councillors in North Yorkshire who have approached me on this, I have to say I am deeply disappointed, for all the reasons that we have given. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure there will be other opportunities to bring this back.
“ChapterPavement parkingProhibition of parking on footways and vergesSchedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) makes provision about the prohibition of the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.”Member's explanatory statement
This would introduce the new Schedule that would be inserted after Schedule 29 by another amendment in my name.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a local planning authority construed in accordance with Part I of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities)(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this was debated some time ago, but if my memory serves me well, I believe it is an unacceptable position that we find ourselves in. We have heard from the music industry and from licensing and planning legal practitioners about how unsatisfactory the current situation is. It is actually delaying the Government’s own growth strategy timetable, because it is leading to unnecessary delays and tensions in planning decisions. As Scotland has now established on a statutory basis the agent of change principle, I believe if it is good enough for my homeland then it is good enough for England. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
“Local authority acquisition of dormant assets(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 16 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A (inserted by Schedule 29 of this Act) for five years continuously,(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 16 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, earlier we discussed the words “community empowerment” in the title of the Bill. We have not had sufficient discussion about what that will mean and how it will be included in the Bill and made a reality for communities. The word “empowerment” in the Bill is without meaning if communities are left powerless to save the very assets they value the most.
Amendment 247, in my name, addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. That could be, for example, a local village pub that is no longer in use, or a village shop or community centre that is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value. That means that the local community has already made the effort to gather the necessary names to support making that building, that particular asset, one of community value. A dormant asset of community value, to which this amendment refers, arises when a fair offer is made on a professionally determined value price, but the owner rejects it and proceeds to let the building sit empty and decaying, and therefore dormant, for years, refusing to sell to the community or anybody else.
This amendment seeks to provide a necessary backstop for those situations. It would empower a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been, in effect, abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public. That would not happen immediately, as the amendment sets out stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is used only as a last resort. The land has to have been on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years. A notice of disposal must have been issued, with the owner having rejected a fair market offer. The owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that sale period.
When those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant. It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, the amendment would ensure that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. The amendment would give communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them—the pride in place that we have heard about throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope the Minister will welcome the amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 251, 263ZA and 263ZB in this group. I start by giving my general support to Amendment 247, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just set out. Councils already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them, so I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.
On Amendment 251, it may seem like Groundhog Day. I am grateful to noble Lords who voted for this in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. At the time, there was a concession from the Planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I reminded the Minister then that I would bring the amendment back if necessary, because we had not heard anything about what was going on with this. The issue, as addressed in Amendment 251, is that, at the moment, only a handful of asset types are protected from demolition. In my experience as an MP in a local community, when owners of places with an asset of community value designation decided to demolish them rather than allow anything further to happen, I felt that was unjustifiable.
I hope the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she said in Committee, when we were told that apparently the consultation would happen “in due course”. For those of us who have served in government, we know that that is basically speak for “never”. That is not encouraging. That is why I want to hear what the Minister has to say today in response to whether any further consideration has been given of when there might be a timely consultation and, ideally, legislation. On that, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House subject to the answer of the Minister.
Amendment 263ZA may seem familiar. It was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but it was not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. Currently, the greater protection given to sporting assets of community value is, in effect, available only to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. It has been designed for non-league and league football clubs where, as we have seen in the past, things suddenly have gone wrong after the owner has gone bankrupt or similar. I felt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this should go further, and take the approach of considering for protection community and playing fields. Such protection is available today in the same way, but not with the same proactivity from the local authority as is currently required under what is proposed for sporting assets of community value.
In Amendment 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough to go further again. We already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat. It is an expressed view of the Government that they wish to no longer have Sport England be a consultee when it comes to planning applications covering existing playing fields. That went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the Government. Amendments 263ZB and 263ZA would, in effect, marry, and bring Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities consider and designate particular areas as sporting assets of community value.
The Government have been surprised at how communities right across the country have, and rightly so, stood up and supported Sport England in its response to the consultation. I am conscious that there are relevant aspects in the NPPF, but the reason I am seeking to put this here is to make sure that we continue to have, for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, the statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation. That could be done in a proactive way.
I am interested to hear further from the Minister about why “sporting ground” has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage on Report, because we have not covered that, and where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come. That is why I will press my amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 247. My noble friend Lady Bennett supported the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this amendment. I will speak also to Amendments 255 and 257. I am grateful to the Minister for the time she took to meet me following Committee; that was very generous. However, I am much less grateful about the fact that what I asked for is still missing from the Government’s Bill. I had hoped that that discussion might lead to some movement on the issue of environmental interests, but they are still missing from the legal definition of assets of community value.
In Committee and again at our meeting, the Minister expressed a concern that including environmental assets could turn this scheme into something of a proxy part of the planning system. I want to address that directly, because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of what these amendments would do. Assets of community value give communities a fair chance to come together and buy a valued asset if it comes up for sale. They are not a backdoor planning system, they do not grant a right to veto development and they do not override local plans. That is already true for social and economic interests. No one suggests that allowing a community to buy a pub, shop or community centre turns this scheme into a proxy for regulating the economy or blocking development, so why is the environment treated differently?
This is where the Government’s position gets very difficult to follow. On the one hand, Ministers say that environmental assets—woodlands, allotments, green spaces—can already be nominated where they further social or economic well-being; on the other hand, they stop allowing communities to refer explicitly to environmental interests in the same way. I do not think that communities think like that. They do not say, “We value this woodland only for its social benefit”, or, “We want to retrofit this community building only for economic reasons”. In practice, we pursue social, economic and environmental goals together, just as every part of our planning system already recognises. However, as the Bill stands, a community could nominate a woodland but would not be able to properly articulate the environmental outcomes that they want to protect or enhance; they could seek to acquire a community centre but could not refer to plans to improve energy efficiency or biodiversity as part of their case. That weakens their chance to make a credible case.
The Government’s answer remains that this may be addressed in statutory guidance, but guidance is not law: it can be changed and it carries less weight. As the Committee debate showed, this risks embedding the very confusion that we are trying to resolve—the confusion between the asset itself and the interests it serves.
Finally, I return to the broader principle. Everywhere else in policy—planning law, national frameworks and sustainable development—we recognise that social, economic and environmental goals belong together. The Bill, in many respects, seeks to devolve power and to trust communities, but in this one area it holds back. Leaving environmental interests out of statute is not being neutral; it is a signal that they matter less, which does not surprise me coming from this Government, because that is what we have seen again and again on environmental issues. It risks missed opportunities and poorer outcomes for communities.
I thank my colleagues on the other Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, for supporting these two amendments. I hope that they will say something in support. I reserve the right to ask the House to vote on this, because, quite honestly, it is a principle that the Government have missed completely. As a Green, that distresses me hugely.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my amendments in this group, concerned with cultural assets of community value—the same amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for these amendments. I have done so primarily to allow me to thank the Minister for the encouraging reply she gave in Committee that such assets will be explicitly recognised in statutory guidelines. The Minister has kindly invited feedback on that guidance, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I have drawn up a more comprehensive list of categories of possible cultural assets than we have discussed, in the hope that this may be of practical use. I have forwarded this in a letter to the Minister over the weekend, so she may not yet have had time to have a look at it. It is a longer list than the examples contained in my Amendment 262, which then would be cited in the Bill. In the interest of completeness, it contains perhaps some unusual examples, but it may be the unusual that a local community wishes to maintain.
One outstanding concern which occurred to us in drawing up this list is about potentially moveable cultural assets, such as archives or furnishings, or even a single object of cultural value; of course, this will be a particular concern for heritage sites. It may be a question of whether or not such assets are integral to the property in which they are housed. This is not something we have previously discussed, but I hope nevertheless that this dimension might be acknowledged within the guidance, so I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. Of course, with historic buildings of national significance, one would hope that other measures come into play, and the conscious inclusion of cultural assets within the scheme should not negate responsibility to others, particularly that which local councils ought to have with regard to many of our cultural assets. However, the great thing about the scheme as it stands is that it is about people power. The local people are often the first to recognise an asset’s importance. In that sense, the scheme is not a replacement for, but an important additional part of, the armoury.
The rest of my amendments raise the status of cultural assets within the legislation; they are not less important. I still protest against cultural being treated as a subset of social and being less important rather than equal to sporting assets within the legislation as it stands, but I am not going to press this at this stage. Rather, I will congratulate the Minister and her team on the clear progress that has been made, ensuring that cultural assets will be much more widely recognised as potential candidates for this scheme.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 263A and 263B. I also support Amendment 263ZB on the consultation with Sport England, which I think is very important. We must not remove Sport England as a consultee. I declare an interest as the honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation, the charity that was founded way back in 1890 to protect, promote and provide playing fields at a time when the pressure to build on open green spaces was intense. Very little has changed since then. However, the activities that can take place on well-managed playing fields, I think we all know, can improve lives, especially when we know how the situation is with young children and obesity.
Sport can provide the motivation to be more active and encourage confidence and social skills. Of course, none of this would be possible without a pitch to play on in the first place, and it is therefore vital that we protect playing fields so that they remain accessible, affordable and attractive to current and future generations. Getting rid of our fields is a false economy. Research commissioned by the London Playing Fields Foundation showed just how much money could be saved. An impact study on the activities at the Douglas Eyre Sports Centre in Walthamstow over a 12-month period found that the minimum saving to the public purse was £4.8 million, mostly in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Let us not forget: once a playing field is lost, it is lost for ever.
I turn to my amendments. First, I say to the Minister that I support government Amendment 252, which is very important, and also the new category of indefinite sporting ACVs in the Bill, which is most welcome. It makes it clear that once a playing field, always a playing field. Thousands of playing fields have been lost to speculators, and the Bill’s right to buy for sporting assets of community value has the potential to ensure that our remaining playing fields become community-owned assets in perpetuity. The right-to-buy mechanism could be a game-changer in saving playing fields, but there is a flaw in the Bill. It is silent on hope value, which, if left unaddressed, means that communities will always fail to compete with speculators.
The Minister said in Committee:
“We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets and are not priced out by inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential”.—[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. GC 517.]
She was so right; “inflated sale prices” is the lay definition of hope value that Amendments 263A and 263B seek to remove from assets of community value valuations. The principle of removing inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential is accepted by the Government; “inflated sale price” is a non-legal term or definition for what we all call hope value. You could also say that it is the key definition. Hope value is the amount of inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential. Hope value is so big in playing fields because the valuation of a playing field is low, because a playing field run by community sports clubs is usually dependent on volunteers, and that is a break-even social asset. Of course, the same acreage with planning for housing is worth many millions.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed amendments very similar to these on the grounds of “striking the right balance” between communities and asset owners. I agree with that, and I think we all agree with that, but there are two scenarios where a speculator owns a sporting asset of community value with the intent of change of use for abnormal profit. A speculator who owns a playing field that is subsequently determined by the local authority as an ACV has a right to appeal the designation of ACV. A speculator can also afford a judicial review of the council decision. Moreover, a speculator who buys a playing field that is already a sporting ACV does so at their own financial risk, speculating that they can remove the ACV designation to enable change of use for profit. My amendments do not disrupt the right balance. The historic loss of playing fields has proven what we all know: it still favours the speculator. The speculator has more funds and more specialist knowledge to pursue their aims than the community has to protect sporting ACVs at risk.
My Amendment 263A presumes that the new right-to-buy process is working and removes the inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential from the valuation process, and so gives a community charity a chance to buy a playing field at a valuation based on its use as a sports ground. Amendment 263B is the back-up if the right-to-buy process fails as the speculative owner is unwilling to sell an ACV to a charity. The Crichel Down rules for compulsory purchase already provide a path to CPO to tackle obstructive owners, but this amendment makes sure that inflated sales prices based on redevelopment potential—hope value—are removed from CPO valuation for sporting ACVs.
Why do so many groups working to protect playing fields feel so strongly and support these amendments? Let me lay out starkly why these amendments are needed. I use Udney Park in Richmond as a reference case. It was opened in 1922 as a war memorial sports ground by Old Merchant Taylors’ Football Club and was re-donated under covenant in 1937 to St Mary’s Hospital Medical School, which then merged with Imperial College London in 1988. In 2014, Imperial decided that Udney Park was surplus and put it on the market. In 2015, Imperial sold it to a UK speculator who gazumped the £2 million community bid with a £6 million winning bid—so £4 million of hope value, or inflated sale price based on redevelopment potential, probably about £30 million. The UK speculator took five years then to get their planning application to a public inquiry, spending a further £4 million on professional fees. Udney Park became an asset of community value in 2016, thanks to all the campaigners. In 2020, the planning inspector refused the change of use and the UK developer then put Udney Park back on the market in 2021.
However, the current asset of community value right-to-bid process failed. The community bid £1 million. The park was now dilapidated and the war memorial pavilion closed and vandalised, so there was a reduction in value as a sports ground since 2015. Unfortunately, an offshore speculator bought the park in 2022 for £3.5 million, so that was now £2.5 million of hope value or inflated sale price based on redevelopment. If hope value is removed, this offers a path to community ownership for Udney Park and other playing fields at risk.
As the Minister must know, local people in all cases of playing fields being threatened put huge voluntary effort into trying to save them. I pay tribute to the Udney Park Playing Fields Trust, led by Mark Jopling, who has also written to the Minister and the shadow Minister, and has been working closely with the Liberal Democrat MP for the area. The trust has been tireless in its efforts, but faced with the wealth of this developer, it has virtually no chance of saving the playing fields for their children’s children to play on if we do not even up the situation on hope value. That is why these two simple amendments are so important.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 263ZA and 263ZB. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales, I have recently been appointed to the board of Active Travel England and I am a patron of Fields in Trust. Sport England is notified only if there is loss or damage to sports fields. While I admire the Government’s ambition to increase housebuilding in an attempt to stimulate growth, it is important than people, especially children, have a place to play. The work of Sport England in safeguarding these areas is really important.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name. I have also added my name to Amendments 255 and 257.
The amendments tabled by the noble Earl do two simple things. Amendment 262 defines “cultural interests” with clear examples, while the remaining amendments correct the anomaly of cultural assets sitting subordinate to sporting assets in a way that DCMS’s own cultural policy does not intend. I also associate myself with the email sent yesterday by the noble Earl to the Minister, referred to in his speech, offering suggestions for the statutory guidance on cultural assets. Can the Minister confirm that there will be feedback on this and that comprehensive guidance will be published before the Bill commences?
Amendments 255 and 257 deserve particular attention. They would extend the community right to buy assets that further environmental well-being, but they would do so carefully. The Minister raised a concern in Committee that amendments should not become a vehicle for general environmental protection. The amendments’ wording addresses that concern directly because land already allocated in local development plans is excluded. That is a precise and principled limitation, meaning that what is left is exactly what should be protected—the green spaces, woodlands and riverside walks that communities have already identified as central to their way of life. The Minister’s alternative, that such assets should be captured through guidance under the existing social and economic well-being criteria, does not provide equivalent security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put it in Committee, once you leave something out of legal safeguards, you invite people to ignore it.
Guidance is precisely what gets set aside when other pressures arise. A green field matters to a community just as much as a music venue does. It deserves the same legal footing, not a footnote in statutory guidance. Yet recognition alone is not enough if an asset can simply be demolished. Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, addresses that gap. I supported that on the planning Bill, as she knows. The Minister confirmed that the Housing Minister has committed to consult on this in the next review of permitted development rights, but a commitment to consult is not a commitment to act. A future consultation offers cold comfort to a community watching its assets face demolition now. The Government have acknowledged that there is a justified argument for this to change. The time for it is in this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendments 255 and 257. I will not repeat what has been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, environmental assets can be included in the register of assets of community value if they are shown to support social and economic well-being. But I am very concerned that the wording of this clause—that these have to be “non-ancillary” uses—will rule out many areas of green space. We know how important green and blue spaces are to communities.
For example, a row of trees or hedgerows between a road and a community would be an important filter for health, filtering noise and visual amenity. But none of that would be easily captured in a way that would allow a community to defend in a legal context that this was a social or economic well-being matter. It is a matter of environmental well-being, mental health, physical health and all sorts of things that would not come under this.
I strongly feel that guidance and using the existing clause as worded will not work for many of the purposes that the Government set out and wanted this clause to capture—all the derelict areas that communities could take up and adopt as green spaces within their community areas. I hope the Government look at this clause again. I will support the noble Baroness if she takes this to a vote.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, at its heart this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental—the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together. Whether they are pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces, these are important spaces for local people. They are the places of shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Her proposal to ensure that buildings designated as assets of community value are protected from permitted development rights that would allow for their demolition is both practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a meaningful opportunity to act.
Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets and to involve Sport England as a statutory consultee, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, reflect the importance of safeguarding grass-roots sports and recreational spaces. These are often the very facilities that underpin community health and well-being, yet they can be among the most vulnerable to loss.
We also recognise the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of so-called dormant assets. While these are important questions to consider around the use of compulsory purchase powers, the principle that communities should not be indefinitely frustrated in their efforts to acquire valued local assets is one that deserves careful attention by the Government.
The amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others, seek to expand the definition of community value to include culture and environmental well-being. We acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole Bill, and the important role that such assets play in community life. However, these provisions do not sit in isolation; they depend on a wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on Pride in Place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets. Yet there remains a lack of clarity as to how this funding is being distributed and whether it is truly reaching all parts of the country fairly.
We understand that the Pride in Place programme offers £5.8 billion over 10 years to more than 300 areas. But what then of those communities deemed ineligible for this funding; what financial support is available to them, and how does the department intend to ensure that they are not left behind? Can the Minister also explain the three metrics used to allocate this funding and the rationale behind the weightings applied to them? Transparency in this respect is essential if confidence in the system is to be maintained. There is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding?
If we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it is not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another. Communities need certainty, continuity and a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not replaced. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments regarding community right to buy an asset of community value, which I will refer to as an ACV, and to all noble Lords for participating in a very useful and thoughtful debate.
I will begin with Amendment 247. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I agree about the importance of ensuring that valued local assets can be retained and used for the benefit of the community. However, the ACV scheme is not designed to interfere with how asset owners are using their private property, nor to compel these owners to sell their property against their wishes. It is intended to empower communities while respecting the property rights of asset owners, and we do not consider it proportionate to restrict how asset owners use their property as long as the use is in line with planning requirements.
We also do not believe that the criteria set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment are a fair representation of a dormant asset. Asset owners may continue to own and manage an ACV for the benefit of the community, even if they indicated an intention to sell previously. Under the policy, it is within their rights to change their mind and withdraw the asset from sale completely. It is where asset owners do wish to sell their asset and the benefit to the community could be lost, or there is an opportunity to revive an asset that had value for the community in the past, that we want to ensure the community can take ownership of and protect the asset through the community right to buy.
Local authorities may already use their compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire ACVs where there is a compelling case in the public interest and negotiations to acquire the land by agreement have failed. Taking the example of the derelict property that the noble Baroness gave, in some circumstances that could be resolved through CPO powers. I am not pretending it is easy; there are steps that need to be taken, but those powers can be used for that purpose.
Placing additional responsibilities on local authorities, which would need to monitor and make potentially complex judgments on whether assets are genuinely dormant, would represent an unreasonable burden. This is especially true given the increase in the number of listed assets we expect to see as a result of this policy.
I turn now to Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It follows the same amendment made in Committee, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. As noble Lords will recall, we do not need primary legislation to amend permitted development rights. We agree with the intention of protecting these important assets of community value, and we have already committed to consult on this. This will follow the proper approach to amending permitted development rights, allowing all interested parties to make representations on the proposals ahead of any secondary legislation needed to make such changes, should the consultation responses support it. There is a slight update on what I said in Committee—we intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish this year.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, are the Government actually saying that environmental assets, environmental benefits, are secondary to social and economic ones and that they are not all intertwined? I cannot believe such blindness on such an important issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
No, I am saying that if an asset is of value to the community for environmental purposes, that would fit in with the economic and social purposes we have set out.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Will the Minister define more carefully the phrase “market value”? She said many times “market value” and “hope value” and that there could be negotiations about the value of a piece of land. I think that by “market value” she means current use value. Will she explain what market value actually is? What is the market value if it is not hope value and does not include hope value?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This would be a negotiation, as I set out, involving an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on the market value of that asset. That means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them. The final price will be determined by the independent valuation process. Community groups will have to decide whether they want to go ahead with that purchase, and asset owners will decide whether they wish to sell at that price.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
But surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we have had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of the Bill. The various issues that have been raised—cultural issues, playing fields, community buildings, assets of environmental value, assets of social value—encapsulate what communities believe to be the value of the place where they live: their pride in place, which they hope the Government will endorse and support.
I welcome the two government amendments in this group that enhance the assets of community value, but there is still much more to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. My friend and colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, has written and urged me to speak on this in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is a good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most. When we come to the next group, that will be reiterated.
Although we have had a good debate, we are not making any progress with the Minister. I will read her detailed answer in Hansard and maybe follow up some points at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Banner
“ChapterLand disposed of by local councilsDischarge of statutory trusts
Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts(1) LGA 1972 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) After section 128 (consents to land transactions by local authorities and protection of purchasers) insert—“Discharge of statutory trusts
128A Statutory trust discharge orders(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to land in England (a “statutory trust discharge order”). (2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory trust discharge order in relation to land unless—(a) a person has applied to the Secretary of State for the statutory trust discharge order to be made in relation to the land, and(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met (see section 128D).(3) The effect of an order being made in relation to land is that the land is freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with—(a) section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds), or(b) section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds).(4) The order has that effect in relation to that land generally (and so its effect is not limited to that land as freehold or leasehold land as held by the applicant for the order).(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision as to the making and determination of any application for a statutory trust discharge order.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may in particular make provision as to—(a) the steps to be taken by a person before making an application;(b) the form of an application;(c) the information or evidence to be supplied with an application;(d) the publication of an application;(e) the holding of an inquiry before determination of an application;(f) the evidence to be taken into account in making a determination and the weight to be given to any evidence.(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may include provision for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to discharge any or all of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to an application for a statutory trust discharge order.(8) The power under subsection (5) to make regulations includes power to make—(a) different provision for different cases;(b) incidental, supplementary or consequential provision;(c) transitional or saving provision.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(10) Section 128G contains further provision about the making of statutory trust discharge orders.128B Applications for statutory trust discharge orders(1) A person making an application must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to how the application is made or to its form or content).(2) Qualifying condition B (see section 128D(3)) limits which kind of person is able to make a successful application.(3) An application may be varied after it has been made (and section 128A, this section, and sections 128D to 128G then apply to the application as varied). (4) The Secretary of State may require a person making an application to pay a fee before the Secretary of State considers the application (the “application fee”).(5) The application fee is to be of an amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made under section 128A(5).(6) The determination of an application for a statutory trust discharge order which relates to particular land does not prevent a further application from being made subsequently in relation to the same land.(7) But the Secretary of State may reject a further application if the Secretary of State considers that there has not been a material change in the circumstances relevant to the qualifying conditions.(8) If a further application is rejected, the Secretary of State must publish notice of the rejection in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128C Applications where land has been divided up(1) This section applies where—(a) a principal council, parish council or parish meeting appropriated or disposed of land, and(b) the freehold or leasehold title to that land has subsequently been divided.(2) An application may be made in relation to the land comprised in any of the relevant titles.(3) A single joint application may be made in relation to the land comprised in two or more of the relevant titles, and, in the case of such an application, the question of whether the qualifying conditions are met must be decided separately in relation to the land comprised in each title.(4) For the purposes of this section—(a) a freehold title is “divided” if either or both of the following occurs—(i) the title is divided into two or more different freehold titles;(ii) a lease (including a sublease) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the freehold title;(b) a leasehold title is “divided” if—(i) the title is divided into two or more different leasehold titles (for example by an assignment of part);(ii) a sublease (including a sublease that is not immediately inferior to the leasehold title) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the leasehold title.(5) In this section “relevant title” means—(a) the freehold title to the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of;(b) the title to a long lease of the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of.128D The qualifying conditions(1) This section sets out the “qualifying conditions” (referred to in section 128A(2)(b)).(2) Qualifying condition A: the application for the statutory trust discharge order identifies land in England in relation to which the order is being sought.(3) Qualifying condition B: the applicant for the order is—(a) the freehold owner of the relevant land, or(b) the tenant of the relevant land under a long lease, whether granted before or after commencement,at the time of the application (whether or not by virtue of the previous appropriation or disposal). (4) Qualifying condition C: a principal council, parish council or parish meeting—(a) appropriated, or(b) disposed of,the relevant land at a time before the application for the statutory trust discharge order is made (the “previous appropriation or disposal”).(5) It does not matter whether the previous appropriation or disposal occurred before or after commencement.(6) Qualifying condition D: the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal.(7) For the purposes of determining whether qualifying condition D is met—(a) it is sufficient that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with;(b) accordingly, it is irrelevant—(i) whether the previous advertisement procedure in fact had to be complied with, or(ii) whether the land was in fact land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with a trust of the kind mentioned in section 128A(3).(8) Section 128F includes provision for presuming that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with; and qualifying condition D must be taken to be met if that presumption is made.(9) Qualifying condition E: the new publicity requirements have been complied with.(10) Qualifying condition F: it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order.(11) The reference in subsection (10) to the public interest includes the public interest in—(a) nature conservation;(b) the conservation of the landscape;(c) the protection of public rights of access to the relevant land;(d) the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest;(e) development proposals relating to the relevant land;(f) economic, environmental or social benefits which the order would facilitate if made.128E The new publicity requirements(1) This section sets out the “new publicity requirements” (referred to in qualifying condition E in section 128D(9)).(2) The applicant must publish a notice of the application in four consecutive weeks—(a) in a local newspaper, and, if there are two or more local newspapers, it must be the main local newspaper;(b) if there is no local newspaper, either—(i) in a national newspaper, or(ii) on a website with a readership in the local area that is comparable to the readership of a local newspaper.(3) If—(a) a newspaper is published in print and on a website, and(b) it is possible to publish notices of the kind required by subsection (2) in both versions,a requirement under subsection (2) to publish a notice in the newspaper can only be complied with by publication of the notice in both versions. (4) If the applicant is a principal council, a parish council or parish trustees, they must also publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on their website (if they have one).(5) The applicant must display a notice of the application for a period of 28 days at the point of entry, or at the main points of entry, to the relevant land.(6) The Secretary of State must publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on the website, or main website, containing information about the Secretary of State’s department.(7) A notice under this section must identify the relevant land.(8) A notice under this section must—(a) state that a person who wishes to make representations about whether or not the order should be made may notify the Secretary of State of the representations, and(b) state the manner in which, and date by which, representations must be notified; and that date must be later than the last day of the period of 56 days beginning with the day when that notice is first published or displayed.(9) When publishing or displaying a notice under this section, the applicant must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to its publication or display or its form or content).(10) In this section—“local area” means area in which the relevant land is situated;“local newspaper” means a newspaper circulating in the local area.128F Previous advertisement procedure: co-operation by councils etc and presumption(1) This section applies if an application has been made to the Secretary of State for a statutory trust discharge order.(2) The Secretary of State must notify the relevant council or parish trustees of—(a) the application,(b) the relevant land, and(c) the information about the previous appropriation or disposal which the Secretary of State has as a result of the application.(3) Within the response period, the relevant council or parish trustees must give the Secretary of State—(a) notice which—(i) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal,(ii) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, or(iii) states that the relevant council or parish trustees are not able to confirm either of those things, and(b) any information relating to compliance, or non-compliance, with the previous advertisement procedure which the relevant council or parish trustees have.(4) If the relevant council or parish trustees—(a) give the Secretary of State a notice under subsection (3)(a)(iii) within the response period, or(b) do not give the Secretary of State any notice under subsection (3)(a) within the response period, the Secretary of State must presume that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the procedure was complied with.(5) In this section— “relevant council or parish trustees” means—(a) in a case where a principal council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(b) in a case where a parish council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish council or parish trustees for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(c) in a case where a parish meeting undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish trustees or parish council for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;“response period” , in relation to a notification given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), means the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is received by the relevant council or parish trustees.128G Making statutory trust discharge orders(1) In deciding whether to make a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State must take into account all matters that are relevant, including these matters—(a) whether, and how, the person making the application has had regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 128B(1) and section 128E(9);(b) any representations about whether or not the order should be made that are notified to the Secretary of State (including any representations made by persons who are freehold owners, or tenants, of land comprised in the previous appropriation or disposal but who are not applying for the order).(2) A statutory trust discharge order may relate to only some of the relevant land specified in the application.(3) A statutory trust discharge order takes effect—(a) on the day after the day on which the order is made, or(b) if the order specifies a later day on which it is to take effect, on that day.(4) In relation to each application for a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State—(a) must publish notice of the decision whether or not to make the order, and(b) if the order is made, must publish the order.(5) That notice, or the order, is to be published in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128H Sections 128A to 128G: interpretation and application to the Crown(1) In sections 128A to 128G and this section—“application” means an application for a statutory trust discharge order;“commencement” means the coming into force of section (Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025; “long lease” means a lease which was granted for a term of 20 years or longer;“new publicity requirements” has the meaning given in section 128E(1);“previous advertisement procedure” means whichever of the following applied to the previous appropriation or disposal—(a) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the appropriation in accordance with—(i) section 122(2A) in the case of an appropriation by a principal council;(ii) section 126(4A) in the case of an appropriation by a parish council or parish meeting;(b) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the disposal in accordance with—(i) section 123(2A) in the case of a disposal by a principal council;(ii) section 123(2A) as applied by section 127(2) in the case of a disposal by a parish council or parish meeting;“previous appropriation or disposal” has the meaning given in section 128D(4);“qualifying conditions” has the meaning given in section 128D(1);“relevant land” means the land identified in the application for a statutory trust discharge order as the land relation to which the order is being sought;“statutory trust discharge order” has the meaning given in section 128A(1).(2) A reference in sections 128A to 128G to the freehold owner, or the tenant under a long lease, is a reference to—(a) the Crown Estate Commissioners, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown and forms part of the Crown Estate;(b) the government department having the management of the freehold or long lease, if it belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown but does not form part of the Crown estate;(c) the government department concerned, if the freehold or long lease belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department;(d) a person appointed by His Majesty in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, or if no such appointment is made the Secretary of State, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of His private estates (which must be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Crown Private Estates Act 1862);(e) the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;(f) a person appointed by the Duke of Cornwall, or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, if the freehold or long lease belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall.”(3) In section 266(1) (orders which are to be made by statutory instrument), for “other than section 261 above” substitute “other than section 128A(1)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make an order in relation to land previously appropriated or disposed of by a council. The order would discharge the land from statutory trusts relating to open land that arise under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 or section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 248 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. Veterans of the early debates on this Bill and on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last year will be more than familiar with the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but given the prospect of Divisions later and in light of the considerable misapprehensions that have been disseminated by opponents of the amendment, I need briefly to outline what it involves.
Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. The Local Government Act 1972 provides at Section 123(2A) that the local authority may not dispose of any such land until it advertises its intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to the advertisement. Where that process has been followed, Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post-advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. That is the existing law and there is no controversy about that.
Where the advertising requirements have not been followed, however, the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case called Day is that the statutory trust continues to exist after the land has been transferred, no matter how long ago that was and notwithstanding the absence of any challenge to the decision to dispose of the land, even if the purchaser was in good faith and was completely oblivious to the issue. Given that the advertising cannot currently be done retrospectively, the land is then permanently blighted by the trust and cannot be repurposed, no matter how strong the public interest in doing so. This issue is causing damaging uncertainty in relation to land purchased from local authorities in good faith, sometimes decades ago, even where the advertising may actually have been done, because in some cases the sale happened so long ago that the evidence about whether the land in question was properly advertised prior to the sale may no longer be readily available. This is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission.
The amendment has been wrongly characterised as being only about the high-profile Wimbledon case. That is untrue. Indeed, the All England Lawn Tennis Club recently won its High Court case concerning whether a statutory trust ever existed in the first place over land on which it has planning permission to expand. So, as things currently stand, the amendment is in fact academic for that case. It is, however, of real importance more widely.
The amendment would fill the gap in the current law in relation to any procedure to remedy the situation where the former open-space land has been disposed of without advertisement, and then is permanently blighted by a statutory trust, without there being any corrective mechanism available in the law. It would do so with the necessary safeguards to ensure that, before former open-space land could be released from such a trust, there was an open process in which the public could participate.
In summary, the freehold or leasehold owner of the land in question must apply for a statutory trust discharge order. The application would then be subject to publicity requirements, including site notice and advertising in the local newspaper for four consecutive weeks—double the existing provision for advertisement—which, if complied with at the time of the sale, would mean under the current law that the trust was already extinguished. That would remedy the original failure to advertise, meaning that there was no consultation deficit.
The four-week period having been followed, there would then be a public law decision as to whether or not it was in the public interest to discharge the trust, having regard to all comments received from members of the public, and indeed from any local authority in question that may respond to the consultation. There is provision for regulations that may provide for additional procedural safeguards, including the potential for a public inquiry in some cases if that was judged to be appropriate.
The safeguards would not simply be procedural; they would also be substantive. In deciding whether the public interest test was met, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following: nature conservation, the conservation of the landscape, the protection of public rights of access to the relevant land, the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interests, development proposals relating to relevant land, and economic, environmental or social benefits that the order would facilitate if made. Only if, having had regard to all those considerations, the Secretary of State was rationally satisfied that it would be in the public interest to discharge any statutory trust may he legally do so. These safeguards would ensure that those statutory trusts that are otiose and serve to frustrate the public interest would no longer blight the land in question following the due process while maintaining any such trusts where there are justified social, environmental or other considerations.
Importantly, the amendment would leave untouched the substantive protections provided for by statutory open-space trusts. All it would do is provide a procedural mechanism for remedying a failure to advertise the disposal of such land.
It is also important to stress that the amendment would leave untouched the planning policy protections for open space. They are set out in paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Statement and I outlined them in Committee. It is very difficult to get planning permission under that policy for open-space land, even if it is currently disused and even if it is in private ownership.
Other substantive protections would also be unaffected, such as the law relating to national parks, commons and greens, and public access rights. Given that the substance of this range of protections would be unaffected by the amendment, there is no need for its coming into force or its operation to await or be affected by the promised review of open-space protections.
There are various amendments to my amendments. In the interests of politeness, I am not going to comment on any of them. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson
“(c) the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom, published a report on the findings of the review, and laid that report before both Houses of Parliament, and has had regard to the outcomes of the review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent regulations in respect of statutory trust orders from being made until the Government’s review on open spaces has taken place, and require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 248D is an amendment to my noble friend Lord Banner’s Amendment 248. My amendment would prevent my noble friend’s amendment coming into effect until the Government’s promised review of open spaces had been completed.
If the Government choose to proceed on the issue of statutory trusts for recreation, it is essential that due process is followed. We know that many people across the country feel strongly about high-profile cases involving statutory trusts, and many of them are concerned about the loss of important green spaces in their local area. There is a reason for the existence of statutory trusts for recreation, and we will stand up for open spaces. We have long campaigned for a brownfield-first approach to housing delivery, and it is greater housing density, not urban sprawl, that is needed. However, we are not blockers. This is about building the right homes in the right places. The Conservative Party is the party of housebuilding. In 2019, we committed to delivering 1 million new homes by the end of that Parliament, and I am proud to say we kept that promise.
My noble friend has already outlined the issues of the Day case so I will not repeat them, but I will refer to paragraph 116 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, in which Lady Rose said:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation in which CSE”—
the new owner of the land—
“no doubt bought the land in the expectation of being able to develop it”.
In the wake of this judgment, a rather messy situation needs resolving. I think noble Lords on all sides of this debate recognise that a solution is urgently needed, not least because the situation we face today is holding back much-needed housing delivery. We recognise the problem, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Banner for his hard work in bringing forward a solution today. He is a very accomplished lawyer in this field and we rely on his expertise in this House so often.
I know that the Minister recognises the problem raised by my noble friend, and we welcome the Government’s engagement with the underlying issues created by the Day case. However, as a responsible Opposition, we need to ensure due process has been undertaken. Ministers have committed to a wide review of open spaces and the sufficiency of those spaces. Surely it is right that they should not proceed with a change in the law on this contentious issue without waiting for that review. That is why I and my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook have tabled Amendment 248D, which would prevent regulation in respect of statutory trust orders being made until the Government’s review of open spaces has taken place and would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I had a large number of amendments to my noble friend’s amendment, but I have reduced them in the interests of simplicity and time.
As my noble friend Lord Jamieson has pointed out, at an earlier stage we were promised a government review of this area. To me, that seems entirely appropriate. This is a complicated area and one of huge importance to communities and to the country as a whole. My noble friend Lord Banner has, of course, devised an extremely attractive and competent amendment, but amendments introduced late in a Bill’s progress in the Lords have a long history of having unexamined and unexpected consequences. They really do not give time, particularly in a difficult area, for government and civil society as a whole to get into the interstices of what needs to be done. Yes, we need to do something, but we should do things in the proper order. The amendments I have left in illustrate some of the areas in which I think my noble friend’s amendment needs examination.
I am unconvinced by the arrangements, or lack of arrangements, for compensation for loss, which leave in the ability for a developer to harass a community by putting in a new application immediately after a previous one has failed. The arrangements for bringing an application to the attention of civil society are very weak in the context of how information flows today. The process can be initiated by a tenant without the freeholder’s involvement. That seems extremely odd. It does not deal with situations where land is being transferred between local authorities, as will happen a good deal in the context of local government reorganisation. There is no real assessment of the need for open space locally. The consideration of environmental loss is very weak. For all those reasons, I think we should go back to the promise made by the Government and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s amendment suggests, not put the Banner amendment into effect until we have done the review.
As my noble friend Lord Banner has pointed out, Wimbledon has won its case so there is no longer urgency with that big beast—the All England Lawn Tennis Club—lobbying hard for this amendment. We can afford to take time to get this right. Noble Lords know that I dislike the actions of the tennis club very much. Well, there we are; I shall survive the fact that it won and my friends lost. I think only highly of my noble friend Lord Banner who has, by bringing his amendment forward, made it impossible for him to accept even a cup of strawberries from Wimbledon for the next few years. He also finds himself putting forward arguments which he will attempt to demolish when he opposes the development of the new Chinese embassy. I think very highly of him and there are a lot of things in his amendment that I like, but I would really like us to take time to consider it properly.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, if cream were added to the strawberries, I suspect it may be more attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I support Amendment 248 and I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
In a nutshell, Amendment 248 has two purposes. First, it is intended to reverse the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the case of Dr Day v Shropshire Council. Secondly, it is designed to provide full protection for members of the public who are rightly concerned both to have a fair opportunity to be informed of a proposed sale of recreational land to which they have access and, if so advised, to challenge that sale. As to the first point, the decision in Day produces a very unsatisfactory result as a matter of law and, indeed, as a matter of common sense. We always hope that the law and common sense function in tandem. We have a tandem here but, unfortunately, it is facing in the wrong direction.
In the Supreme Court, Lady Rose said—I think this point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—in paragraph 116 of her judgment:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.
The mess referred to by the learned justice is that, although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and although the Local Government Act 1972 expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers in the two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place. As a result, the land cannot be developed. It is permanently blighted because the original failure to advertise, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, pointed out, simply can never be put right.
At a time when the Government are rightly concerned to increase the housing stock, it will be immediately apparent that the Day decision operates as a significant inhibition on that important social policy. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, recognises this point but, with great respect, I cannot agree with the conclusion that he arrives at.
As has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, the form of this amendment is rather different from its predecessor, which we put forward during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill some months ago. Pausing there, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the view that the one we are presented with in the House this evening is a late amendment. With great respect, I do not agree. This amendment was on the table in Committee in the course of this Bill; that is not a late amendment at all. During the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, some noble Lords expressed concerns to the effect that reversing the Day decision was all well and good, but it would leave members of the public who are rightly concerned to protect their recreational space with no ability to challenge a proposed sale or have their voices heard—a perfectly reasonable complaint, if I may say so.
That brings me to my second point. The amendment takes full account of those concerns. It would provide for a robust public consultation process. It would mean that an application would have to be made for what is called a statutory trust discharge order, with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met, the qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, most importantly what are called the new publicity requirements must be complied with, and the Secretary of State must be satisfied that
“it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”,
which is qualifying condition F.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the public interest is defined in the widest possible terms—again, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has made the point. I appreciate that there are more wide-ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, which have been expressed by, for example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other interest groups. For those groups, we are told our amendment does not go far enough. As to that, I respectfully make two points. First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of parks, trusts and protections and it should not be caught up in or delayed by that distinct political debate. The second point is that, for practical purposes, this amendment would produce real improvements in the law. The advertising requirements in the 1972 Act are minimal compared with what is proposed in this amendment. If the local authority had complied with the simple requirement to advertise locally for just two weeks, Dr Day’s claim would have failed. Indeed, his claim would have been dismissed as unarguable.
Your Lordships will of course appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put forward something like 50 amendments to our Amendment 248. To be fair to him, a very large number of them have been withdrawn, for which we are grateful. I have studied his suggested amendments with some care, but I am not persuaded that any of them would in any way improve or clarify our Amendment 248.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the powerful speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and my noble friend Lord Grabiner. I just want to emphasise two points on Amendment 248, to which I have added my name. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser takes free from the trust—that is Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law. The only question to which this amendment is directed is what should happen if there has been a failure by the local authority properly to advertise the trust.
The second point I want to emphasise is that, if the local authority fails properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is perfectly entitled to bring a judicial review to challenge the sale within a short time period—normally three months but reduced to six weeks in the planning context. The vice of the present law, as stated by the Supreme Court, is that the purchaser in good faith remains bound by the trust, even though it is not responsible for the failure of the local authority to advertise and even though no legal challenge has been brought within the applicable time limits. The whole purpose of time limits in public law is to ensure that, after the expiry of the time limits, people can go about their business and can develop land in their interests and of course in the public interest. That is the context.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, if I heard him correctly, said that in the interests of politeness he would not comment on the amendments to his Amendment 248. I am less polite than my friend the noble Lord, Lord Banner—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for confirming that she knows that already. I will comment, I hope politely, on Amendment 248D in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson spoke. They wish to insert a precondition to the application of these new provisions for statutory trust discharge orders. The precondition is that the Secretary of State must first undertake a review of the availability of open spaces in this country, publish a report, lay the report before both Houses of Parliament—no doubt there would then be a debate—and then have regard to the outcome of the review.
This will cause very substantial delay in the application of the new statutory trust discharge orders, and it will cause substantial delay—years of delay—despite us all agreeing, I think, that these new orders are needed urgently. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressly accepted that these new provisions are urgently needed. If he accepts that they are urgently needed, it makes no sense at all to delay their application for many years.
In any event, I suggest to noble Lords that to await such a review would be especially inappropriate because the review would be general. Amendment 248D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom. By contrast, proposed new Section 128D(10), from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, specifies that the qualifying condition F is whether,
“it is in the public interest for the relevant land”—
I emphasise “relevant land”—
“to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that it makes no sense for a general review to hold up decisions on specific land which raise entirely distinct issues.
Indeed, that amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is also unnecessary. If there are concerns about the availability of open spaces in the locality of the relevant land, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to take that into account in deciding, under proposed new Section 218D(10) and (11), whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts.
Like my noble friend Lord Grabiner, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn, by my counting—it is perhaps an approximation—39 of the amendments he proposed to Amendment 248. The noble Lord suggests that this is all being rushed, and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, addressed that point. I add that we have been over this ground since last September; there is nothing new about this. Many of us spoke on amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill earlier this Session, in support of or in opposition to an earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which had a similar objective. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said on 15 September last year—and again today—referring to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner:
“The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1985.]
We have all known that since last September. The Minister said that,
“this issue needs to be given wider consideration to identify a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; cols. 1985-86.]
That has taken place. Here we are today and it is high time that we resolve this issue.
Amendment 248 sets out a fair, transparent and practical means of addressing the problem; it requires an application by the landowner, detailed advertising and consideration by the Secretary of State, who has broad discretion in whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trust. That is the appropriate way forward and that is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
Lord Fuller (Con)
May I say something before the Front Benches? I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, but I support Amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. We heard in the debate that this has all come at the last minute but, by my reckoning, this is the fourth time I have sat through this debate. If I were to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth, as I have not looked at whether it was mentioned at the Second Reading of both the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the Bill before us.
I have listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards and we have quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there is no chance of pulling the wool over people’s eyes or trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper.
The wider issue is that we cannot orphan land or blight places in perpetuity. It would be perverse to do that just for want of being able to find an advert in a 100 year-old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that does not exist anymore. That is the prejudice before us. Sometimes you have to look forward and offer a remedy—which is not only in the public interest but in the interest of natural justice too.
This is not just about Wimbledon—that has been sorted—but we have heard in this debate that the shadow exists elsewhere. The matter is not resolved and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, told us to get it sorted. If we do not, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and opportunity—a chance for certainty on all sides, including the protagonists in this issue. Now is the moment.
We have heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country. We have a Government in a hurry and sites that are stalled, with people hanging about and waiting. Now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let us get on with it and make a decision. Let us pick up the baton laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind Amendment 248. It is time that we got it done.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I shall start again. We have an amendment signed by three noble Lords who have, in their usual lawyerly way, made a powerful case for one side of the argument. Here I am, however, to speak up for the community in a debate on a Bill labelled in part the “community empowerment” Bill. I have two fundamental issues of concern with this amendment. The first is an issue of parliamentary process and the second a matter of principle.
As to the first—the issue of parliamentary process—one of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has not been, and if it is passed this evening, will never be, put before the elected Chamber of Parliament. The amendment has been introduced on Report in this House, and we are the second House to consider this Bill—
Lord Pannick (CB)
With great respect, I suggest to the noble Baroness that that cannot be right. If we approve this amendment today, the Bill goes back to the other place, and it is a matter for the Commons whether they agree with us or not. If they do not agree, they will say so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
They are likely not to have the power to agree to have a debate on the amendment as an entity. Considering that the Government are supporting this amendment, it is likely to be included within the Bill as a whole. The amendment as an entity will not be debated by the other place. That, it seems to me, is of huge regret, when it has very serious and extensive repercussions for public open space throughout the country. That is something that we should be very much concerned with, as we think about whether or not this amendment should be passed.
The second bit of the process that concerns me is that it is being introduced as a remedy for an issue with which all of us should be concerned—namely, that there is a problem with no obvious route to put it right, except the one that is being proposed. But it is being done not as a specific remedy for a specific case, but as a general proposal for any such issue without knowing what the implications of that will be. It is unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others have not referenced any specific cases, apart from the well-known Wimbledon Park case and the Day v Shropshire case. Apart from those, it is not known what the consequence of this amendment will be if it is passed. What of other areas of public land held in statutory trust by local authorities for the people they represent in their local area? It is not clear; we do not know. The evidence is not there. That is the problem. That is why, I presume, the Minister made the pledge in earlier stages of the discussion on this issue to do a review. Unfortunately, we await the review, which should have come before any such wide-ranging amendment is put into law.
The second fundamental issue is that of the principle of the amendment. What we are being asked to agree to concerns what is believed to be held in statutory trust by a local authority. The word “trust” is really important at a time when the public are losing trust in how those of us who are elected—or, in the case of this House, not elected—make decisions on their behalf.
If it is set aside and held by the local authority in public trust for the benefit of local people, we need a remedy for the failure of that local bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that this is what we must do. However, it is not acceptable to do that using the same—or extended—process that is being proposed by the amendment, which is to have four weeks of notice in a public newspaper, a local newspaper, the circulation of which is plummeting. If we are to do this effectively, we have to have a different way of notifying local people that somebody wants to breach that trust and have the land for development, so that they can have a voice in opposing or supporting that change in the land that has been held in trust for generations.
In the example of Wimbledon Park, which we ought to reference, it is said the freehold was purchased in 1993 by the All England Club, with an express condition, I am told, that the area would not be developed and the freehold would eventually return to Wimbledon Park. As we have heard, that challenge is subject to the courts. The High Court has made a decision in favour of the All England Club, but it is going to appeal, so it has not yet been resolved, and we wait to see what the arguments are. Certainly, the community that benefits from Wimbledon Park is very unhappy at the situation that has become apparent. While I understand both sides of the argument, at the heart of it is that Wimbledon Park is held in trust, and the local community should have a very powerful voice in deciding its outcome.
I also have huge concerns of principle about the retrospective nature of the amendment. The amendment, which, if accepted, will become law, proposes to go back to 1980—nearly 50 years—so anything where there is a question mark over the land held in trust. It is only a question mark, because often, due to local government reorganisation, who knows what the situation is, when papers have gone astray during transfer from one local authority to another. It is going to be retrospective, and retrospective law is nearly always bad law. So let us not do it. Let us at least remove that element of the amendment.
Finally—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, it depends whether noble Lords regard land held in public trust for public benefit as important. If noble Lords do not, then they are probably lucky in having land to enjoy—whereas many people living in the communities represented by those in the other place rely on public open land to provide them with access to green open space, which is why this amendment is so important.
One of the other elements of the proposal in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is that it would give the Secretary of State the final say. As someone who advocates for local democracy, that is the final straw for me. This is a devolution and community empowerment Bill, and the last thing we should do is take power from the community and local democracy and give it to the Secretary of State—that will not do. Amendment 249, in my name, would restore the balance by ensuring that the Secretary of State cannot make a decision on a statutory trust without the express written consent of the local authority, and by confirming that the termination of the trust is in the public interest following full and wholesome public consultation.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. First, I am a member of the All England Lawn Tennis Club; I am on the committee.
I will correct something that was said about the existing situation. To be absolutely clear, the courts made it clear that there is no statutory trust on that land, so I am afraid that what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said was not correct. I do not understand her point about parliamentary process, because this Bill will go to the Commons and then come back. I am confused if, after all my decades of dealing with legislation, I have missed something. I do not get that.
On the point about putting it to the Secretary of State, it is very important that that process means that they have to consult the local community and that the community gets its right to speak. I thought I should briefly say those three things.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 248 and his engagement on this matter. It has absolutely not been a last-minute issue. The noble Lord raised this issue first in the debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There has been much engagement between me and the noble Lord—and between him and officials—over many months. Officials and I have also dealt with a large volume of correspondence on the issue.
As the noble Lord set out, and as was discussed during debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently there is no way of release statutory trusts where the original statutory advertisement procedure has not been complied with. The consequence is stark: land can remain bound by a statutory trust in perpetuity, even if that outcome serves today’s communities or the wider public interest. I point out—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has already made this point—that, if the local authority follows the procedure and provides the advertisement, it can release the trust in the first place. This is only a backstop in case that procedure has failed.
The current position risks holding up important developments that may be in the public interest: for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The Government do not believe that historic procedural failures should indefinitely frustrate sensible, beneficial outcomes. In practice, this legal lacuna—I did not know that word until I started working on this, but I do now—can prevent the delivery of much needed homes, community facilities, transport infrastructure or environmental improvements, which may command strong local and national public interest support but are currently blocked by an inflexible legal position.
Since taking office, our Government have been clear that we are builders not blockers, but we are equally clear that development must be responsible, transparent and rooted in the public interest. The amendment would strike that balance very carefully. It would create a clear, lawful mechanism to address historic errors, while ensuring that statutory trusts are discharged only where it is right to do so.
Crucially, the amendment would introduce a rigorous, evidence-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions, robust publicity requirements and a broad public interest test at its heart. Communities would have clear opportunities to make representations. Environmental and heritage considerations must be weighed, and decisions would be taken transparently and published openly.
The Government are firmly of the view that green and open spaces play a vital role in well-being, recreation, nature recovery and local identity. The amendment fully recognises that value and acknowledges that some parcels of land, due to changes over time, no longer serve their original recreational purpose and may deliver greater public benefit if repurposed in a careful and considered way. By providing a structured route to resolve these cases, rather than leaving them in permanent legal uncertainty, the amendment would restore fairness, unlock stalled opportunities and ensure that decisions about public land were made deliberately, transparently and in the public interest.
While the amendment would provide a fail-safe for very specific instances where statutory procedures had not been followed, the failure to adhere to it is symptomatic of a wider issue regarding the protections for public spaces which requires examination. Existing protections for urban green spaces and recreational land are fragmented, complex and very difficult to navigate. There is no clear comprehensive picture of what land is protected, which can leave communities—and local authorities—struggling to safeguard valued spaces. It makes it harder for those local authorities to operate confidently within the planning system.
To address this, my department is undertaking an internal review of the legislative framework governing public recreational green spaces. The review will clarify current statutory protections, assess how effective and usable they are in practice and consider where the system can be simplified. Over the coming months, we will engage with stakeholders across local authorities, the parks and green spaces sector, as well as the development sector to inform this work, which is expected to map existing legislative protections and establish how each piece of legislation operates and interacts in practice, drawing on evidence gathered from stakeholder engagement. For those reasons, the Government strongly support the amendment, while taking forward work to review the wider framework for protecting recreational green spaces.
Amendment 248D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would make the exercise of the statutory trust discharge order power conditional on the completion and publication of a UK-wide review of open space availability. While I recognise the importance of protecting public recreational land, the Government cannot support this approach.
The power created by Amendment 248 is a targeted, balanced and proportionate response to a specific legal problem: historic procedural failures under the Local Government Act 1972. These failures have left some land subject to statutory trust in legal uncertainty. The amendment before us would risk delaying or even preventing entirely the use of that narrowly defined power, regardless of the circumstances of the land in question.
The difficulty of the amendment lies in the breadth and uncertainty of what is proposed. “Open space” is defined very widely in existing legislation and policy, covering a broad range of land types and engaging interests across multiple government departments. The amendment does not define the scope, methodology or frequency of the proposed review, leaving it unclear whether such a review would need to be undertaken once or repeatedly before the power could be exercised.
The UK-wide requirement of the amendment would provide a further difficulty. Land, planning and open space policy are largely devolved matters, and a review covering the whole of the United Kingdom would require the agreement and active co-operation of the devolved Administrations, over which the Secretary of State has no direct control. It would therefore be open to factors wholly outside the scope of the Bill to delay or frustrate the use of the power, even where all relevant conditions in England had been met. In practice, the provisions of the amendment would be highly complex, time-consuming and likely to stall the statutory trust discharge regime altogether. For those reasons, while the Government remain committed to the protection of public recreational green space, we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the effectiveness and legal certainty of this targeted mechanism.
Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Secretary of State to obtain an express written consent of the relevant local authority before making a statutory trust discharge order following a separate local consultation and reporting process. While I recognise the importance of local engagement and protecting land held for public enjoyment, the Government cannot support this amendment. Amendment 248 is designed to address a very narrow but significant legal problem: historic cases where land remains subject to a statutory trust because correct procedures were not followed when it was sold or appropriated to a different purpose by a local authority. The purpose of Amendment 248 is to close a gap in existing law and allow such trusts to be released where specific conditions are met, including that it is in the public interest to do so. It provides a pragmatic route to resolve those difficulties where existing mechanisms have proved insufficient.
By making local authority consent a legal precondition, Amendment 249 could prevent the new power from being used in precisely the cases it is intended to address. It would turn a backstop statutory remedy into a process that could simply be blocked, even where it would be in the public interest for it to be exercised. Amendment 249 would give local authorities an effective veto over statutory trust discharge orders, even in cases where they no longer own or control the land. The land may have been lawfully sold or transferred decades ago, yet under this amendment a former owner could block discharge regardless of its lack of property interest or liability. Amendment 248 already provides that the Secretary of State must take into account any representations, including those from local authorities, about whether or not the order should be made. Amendment 249 would also duplicate advertisement requirements that are already built into Amendment 248, adding delay and complexity without improving outcomes.
I now turn to the amendments to Amendment 248 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, excluding Amendment 251A, which I will address separately. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the attention he has given to Amendment 248 and for his meeting at very short notice with officials in the department, which I hope he found helpful. Taken together, his amendments would significantly undermine the purpose of Amendment 248 and make the new statutory trust discharge order process extremely difficult to operate in practice. Amendment 248 is intended to provide a pragmatic and proportionate solution to the specific legal problem. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would recast that targeted remedy into a much more onerous regime, introducing new substantive tests and requirements that would go significantly beyond addressing the historic defects. In particular, the amendments would require applicants and the Secretary of State to satisfy additional conditions that are not part of the existing statutory trust framework, and which are not necessary to fix the lacuna that Amendment 248 is designed to close. The additional conditions proposed by the noble Lord would extend significantly beyond the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.
The amendments would also place significant practical barriers in the way of using the new power, introducing mandatory compensatory benefit requirements and expanded and prescriptive publicity obligations. These amendments would bar cases already before the courts, introduce a five year ban on repeat applications and expand the public interest test to require assessment of local open space need and the benefits of refusing an order. This would mean that many legitimate cases could never be resolved through the new route. Rather than reducing legal uncertainty, this would entrench it and encourage further litigation.
Finally, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord would make statutory trust discharge orders rigid and high risk for decision makers, including by preventing orders from ever being amended or revoked once made. Taken together with highly prescriptive procedural requirements, this would deter use of the power altogether. The result would be that Amendment 248 would exist in legislation but would be too rigid and difficult to use, leaving the underlying legal problem unresolved.
Amendment 251A seeks to preserve statutory trust protections where land subject to these protections is transferred between public bodies which intend that the statutory trust will continue. While I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue, the Government do not support this amendment. This particular issue is complex, and the Government need more time to consider it and work through the consequences of changing the law, including the implications for local authorities, national park authorities and wider government priorities. I will ask officials to investigate this issue, and I would welcome any evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that demonstrates when this has been a problem in practice. That will help us work out what the best solution is. If appropriate, we will consider this issue in our review of legislative protections for public recreational green spaces. For all the reasons I have given, while I fully acknowledge the noble Lord’s intentions, I ask him, and the other noble Lords who have submitted amendments, not to press their amendments, except for Amendment 248.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We share the Government’s ambition for more homes. On the specific proposal in response to the Day case, we recognise the need to resolve the situation. I am pleased that many noble Lords across the House seem to concur with that view. I appreciate the many protections that my noble friend Lord Banner has put into his amendment. However, I go back to a fundamental issue. The Government have committed to a review. It can only be right that the review takes place and is taken into account by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I agree with and endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Pannick and Lord O’Donnell, my noble friend Lord Fuller and the Minister in their responses to the various speeches opposing Amendment 248 or advancing amendments to it. I am very conscious of the hour but I have three short points in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who suggested that the advertising process may not be appropriate.
First, the principle of advertising is already enshrined in the existing law, as I outlined. It is sufficient to discharge trust if done at the time. There is no basis for criticising the principle of it. Secondly, it is not retrospective—that is wrong—as the statutory trust discharge order would be prospective. Thirdly, the noble Baroness asked what the consequences are. There is one consequence, which is to serve the public interest, for that is the test posed by the amendment.
I can reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that I shall buy every single strawberry that I consume for the rest of my life. With all that in mind and for the reasons I have already given, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 248.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) (permitted development rights: heritage and demolition), after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I said earlier that I would wait for the Minister’s response. I think the House will be pleased that I think the response was sufficiently satisfactory, so it would be churlish for me to press this to a Division. I therefore will not move the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This changes the time period during which an asset of community value is to be included on a local authority’s list from 5 years to 10 years.
1A “(1) A list of land of community value maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 87(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original asset list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land of community value maintained by that authority under section 86A(1) of that Act (“the new asset list”).(2) Any land that is included in the new asset list by virtue of sub paragraph (1) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original asset list.(3) A list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 93(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original unsuccessful nominations list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained by that authority under section 86I(1) of that Act (“the new unsuccessful nominations list”).(4) Any land that is included in the new unsuccessful nominations list by virtue of sub paragraph (3) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original unsuccessful nominations list.(5) This paragraph does not limit the power under section 92(10) to make any other transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule. (6) In this paragraph, “the relevant day” is the day on which paragraph 1 of this Schedule comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes transitional provision so that the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations currently held by a local authority will become the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations under the new community right to buy provisions for England inserted by Schedule 29 to the Bill.
“ScheduleProhibition of parking on footways and vergesProhibition of parking
1 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of giving each English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the footways and verges which form part of the relevant highways in the authority’s area.(2) But parking regulations may not give an English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on parking in any place that is not in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions under Part 2 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.(3) Parking regulations may make provision about the meaning of “parking” (and cognate expressions) for the purposes of parking prohibitions.(4) Parking regulations may amend an Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.(5) Parking regulations are subject to affirmative procedure.(6) Paragraphs 2 to 9 deal with particular kinds of provision that may be made by parking regulations.Imposition of, and publicity for, a parking prohibition
2 Parking regulations may make provision about—(a) the process by which, and manner in which, the power to prohibit parking is exercisable;(b) the manner in which the imposition of a parking prohibition may or must be publicised.Exclusions: roads etc
3 (1) Parking regulations may exclude particular descriptions of relevant highways or parts of relevant highways from parking prohibitions (including parts of relevant highways designated by, or by virtue of, an Act or secondary legislation as a place where parking is permitted).(2) Parking regulations may give an English local transport authority the power to exclude—(a) particular relevant highways or parts of relevant highways, or(b) particular parts of the authority’s area,from a parking prohibition.(3) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Exclusions: vehicles and usage
4 (1) Parking regulations may exclude any of the following from parking prohibitions—(a) particular descriptions of motor vehicles; (b) motor vehicles which are used or parked for particular purposes or in particular circumstances.(2) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Traffic signs
5 (1) Parking regulations may make provision about traffic signs relating to parking prohibitions (“relevant traffic signs”).(2) Parking regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) may—(a) require traffic authorities to carry out functions in relation to relevant traffic signs (including provision giving English local transport authorities the power to give directions to traffic authorities to carry out such functions);(b) may require co-operation among, or between, one or more of the following in respect of functions relating to relevant traffic signs—(i) English local transport authorities;(ii) traffic authorities;(iii) local authorities.(3) This paragraph does not limit any power or duty relating to traffic signs arising under any other Act or secondary legislation; but that does not limit the provision that may be made under this paragraph.(4) In this paragraph—“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a unitary district council, or(c) a metropolitan district council;“traffic sign” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see section 64 of that Act).Defences
6 Parking regulations may provide for defences to contraventions of a parking prohibition.Consultation and guidance
7 (1) Parking regulations may require English local transport authorities to carry out consultation in connection with the exercise of functions under parking regulations.(2) Parking regulations—(a) may give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance;(b) may require a person to whom the guidance is directed to have regard to it.Enforcement
8 (1) Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In paragraph 4 (contraventions outside Greater London involving stationary vehicles), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is parked in contravention of a prohibition imposed by an English local transport authority in accordance with regulations made under Schedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (parking on footways and verges).”Repeal of existing legislation
9 Parking regulations may repeal an Act if, or to the extent that, it prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges, or any similar part of a road, whether or not a relevant highway as defined in paragraph 11, in England, or any part of England, outside Greater London.Crown application
10 This Schedule applies to the parking of—(a) motor vehicles in the public service of the Crown that are required to be registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and(b) motor vehicles belonging to, or used for the purposes of, a Minister of the Crown or Government department.Interpretation
11 In this Schedule—“carriageway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“cycle track” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“English local transport authority” means—(a) a local transport authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000 — see section 108(4) of that Act) in England, and(b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;“footway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“highway maintainable at the public expense” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 328 of that Act);“motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 136 to 140 of that Act);“parking” includes stopping (and “parked” is to be construed accordingly);“parking prohibition” means a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles imposed by an English local transport authority through the exercise of a power conferred by parking regulations;“parking regulations” means regulations made under paragraph 1(1);“relevant highway” means any length of highway maintainable at the public expense, but does not include any special road;“special road” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“unitary district council” means the council for a non-metropolitan district for which there is no county council;“verge” means any part of a relevant highway which is not a carriageway, footway or cycle track.”Member's explanatory statement
This would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which give English local transport authorities the power to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to making travel by taxi or private hire vehicle as safe as it can possibly be. We are committed to the reforms needed as a result of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and regard the taxi and private hire vehicle elements of the Bill as the first step ahead of wider engagement, which is starting to take place now, and possible future primary legislation. That is why in these amendments we are seeking powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to set in regulations the national standards that must be met to obtain, retain or renew any taxi or private hire vehicle driver, vehicle or operator’s licence, and why, having carefully listened to the views expressed in Committee, we are seeking further changes to improve regulatory oversight.
Government Amendments 266, 269 to 278 and 300 are intended to use language that more accurately reflects the intent of the standards. Licensing authorities will still be able to supplement them to address specific local needs if they consider it necessary, but the standards themselves will not be minimal. Once set, national standards will prioritise safety and accessibility so that passengers can be confident that, wherever they live or travel in England, the taxi and private hire vehicle services that they use will be subject to robust licensing standards.
On Amendment 279, we have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that national standards alone are not enough to address the challenges created by out-of-area working whereby taxi and private hire vehicle drivers license with one authority but operate mainly in another licensing authority’s area. Following the noble Baroness’s amendments in Committee and subsequent discussions, the Government have brought forward amendments that will strengthen existing enforcement powers and ensure that enforcement officers can take immediate action against any licence, irrespective of which authority issued it, which is a key aim of the noble Baroness’s previous amendments.
National standards will be enforced through licensing processes, both by applications being refused where the standards are not met and through the suspension and revocation of licences if standards are breached during the duration of the licence. Government Amendment 279 will introduce a duty for licensing authorities to report any breach of national standards by a driver to the authority that issued the licence, building on the existing requirement for safeguarding, road safety and equality discrimination concerns to be reported.
The licensing authority that receives such a report must, within 20 working days, decide whether to suspend or revoke the licence and inform the reporting licensing authority of its decision. To enable the use of this reporting requirement to be measured, the clause will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations enabling data about its use to be collated and published. This will provide transparency and reassurance that licensing authorities are meeting their obligations and that licensees they suspect are unfit are being reported.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the government amendments tackling some of the issues around taxi and private hire licensing and enforcement across the country. This is an issue I raised through a series of amendments in Committee, and in discussion with the Minister, and I am grateful for this action.
In Committee, I had suggested granting powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. I felt this was a good way to help plug the safeguarding gap which the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, had flagged in her report, but it would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, ahead of any future legislation. We know cross-border hiring is a real issue and that the problem needs addressing, as soon as the Government are able to, but I welcome the Government listening carefully to my concerns and those of other Members across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Hampton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who added their names to my amendments.
The Government’s amendments here ensure a duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas, to suspend those licences temporarily in the interest of public safety, and for the responsible licensing authority to respond and take action. These are a solid way forward. We on these Benches fully support these amendments to start to close the safety gaps in the licensing and enforcement of taxis and private hire.
There are a couple of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this area: one to take out the temporary suspension of a licence and one on reporting. We do not support those amendments today.
I urge the Government to move at pace going forward on consultation and research around the issues of the taxi and private hire sector and to bring forward legislation, as soon as they are able, to ensure that passenger safety is consistent across every region. I put firmly on record our thanks to the Minister for his constructive work on this important safety area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in general, we welcome most of these amendments. To deal first with those repetitive amendments that say “leave out ‘minimum’” all the way through, as I say, in general we are supportive of those. The art here is to get the right balance between having standards which are predictable, from the point of view of the operators of private hire services, and leaving sufficient scope for local variation to adapt to local circumstances. We want to avoid circumstances where we have what might be called only minimum standards nationally and then every local authority having lots of different standards of its own piled on top, which make it very difficult for large operators to manage a fleet. But we do not want to have purely national standards with no local variation, because that would strike the wrong balance and prevent appropriate adaptations where necessary. On the face of it, we think that the Government’s amendments come closer to striking that balance correctly than the Bill as introduced to your Lordships’ House, so we tend to support them.
We would like to know whether the Government are going to be issuing not only standards—of course, the Government will be issuing national standards in due course—but guidance on what is appropriate for local authorities to be issuing their own licence conditions on. Is that an area the Government intend to go into? That would be very interesting to hear, because, as I say, this is a question of balance. It is not necessarily easy to get it right, and we want the Government to be able to get it right. This might be better still, but it is better than what was here before; that is why we are willing to support those amendments.
On the question of the suspension, I think we need to be a little bit more forensic than perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, or even the Minister were. What we are discussing here is three different licences which are necessary for the operation of private hire vehicles. The first is a licence for the driver. This is not a driving licence as we normally understand it but a licence specifically for private hire, which is personal to the driver. The second is a licence for the vehicle: the vehicle has to meet certain standards that its local licensing authority has checked, ideally. But the third is a licence for the operator.
The operator is a very difficult thing to capture, in some ways. On one hand, the operator might be that booth at the end of the railway concourse that organises local minicabs and has done for years, in the way that we are all familiar with. On the other, nowadays it is equally likely to be a very large firm, such as an Uber or an Addison Lee, operating a practically national service. But it could be, as the Minister himself said, simply that the driver is his own operator: he takes the messages, he takes the bookings and he provides the service. So what constitutes an operator is a very wide range of things.
Imagine circumstances where a driver who is perhaps licensed in Birmingham has a passenger to take to Droitwich Spa, which is not in Birmingham, I might say, for those who are uncertain of the fact; it is not, I can assure them. He gets to Droitwich Spa and runs into an enforcement officer who has an objection to the driver. I completely understand why, smelling his breath and deciding that he is drunk, the enforcement officer should immediately suspend his licence temporarily, even though that licence was issued not in Droitwich Spa but in Birmingham. I completely understand that. I am entirely behind that provision of the new clause.
Equally, we are completely behind the second provision in the clause, which covers the situation where the vehicle is not in a fit state and it is necessary for public safety that it should be taken off the road immediately—the bald tyre mentioned by the Minister, but it might be something else. We are completely behind the idea that the local enforcement officer in Droitwich should have this new power to take the vehicle off the road and suspend the licence. I do not know that he can actually seize the vehicle, but he can suspend the vehicle licence immediately, so that the continued use of that vehicle for private hire purposes would become an offence. We are completely behind that.
But then we come to the question of suspending the operator, and here I have genuine difficulties in understanding what the Government envisage. At an extreme, one could envisage circumstances in which the officer in Droitwich Spa, looking at his checklist of powers, which has three powers, ends up inadvertently suspending Uber in Birmingham overnight, just like that, at the drop of a hat. Every driver operating for Uber in Birmingham is now technically illegal, in the whole city, as a result of the misapplication of this power.
What circumstances, I ask—and I did ask the Minister informally just before we started this debate—can one envisage in which one would want such a power, given that the local officer has the power, and we support this, to close down the driver and the vehicle? Why should he want to be able to take out the operator, which might be a very large operator in a large city close by? The Minister, to my disappointment, did not address that question as fully in his opening remarks; it is fair to say that he did not address that question at all, despite having a certain amount of notice of it. It is not for me to supply the circumstances in which he might do so, but even if I were willing to supply them, I have great difficulty in struggling to find the answer. Therefore, I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 280A, which seeks to remove the power to immediately suspend the operator licence on a temporary basis. Those are the factors: immediately and on a temporary basis.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their contributions. Before I respond on Amendments 280A and 287A, I will briefly address the guidance question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The department has for many years issued guidance related to safeguarding, accessibility and the appropriate regulation of the sector, and that will continue. That would include guidance about the two local authorities and about local standards to be applied, as well as the national standards.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 280A would remove the power that we seek for all licensing enforcement officers to have the ability to temporarily suspend with immediate effect any driver, vehicle and private hire vehicle operator licence, if the licence relates to the operation of a vehicle being driven in the enforcement officer’s area. I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, from her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. She said that most taxi drivers, and by extension most operators,
“are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public”.
The Government echo those sentiments. We agree that the vast majority of the trade, whether it is drivers, vehicle operators, owners or private hire vehicle operators, are hard-working and law-abiding people who take pride in their work. But we want to keep passengers safe while protecting the good reputation of the trade from a minority who are irresponsible and/or potentially dangerous to their individual passengers and customers. We can do that now by giving the right tools to licensing authorities.
We often hear about the inconsistent patchwork of licensing regulation, and the noble Lord’s amendment, regrettably, would create another example of it. Why would we grant a power to licensing authorities to take action to prevent drivers and vehicles that pose an immediate risk or have caused harm to public safety from working but not provide the same powers for operators if there are urgent safety concerns to justify doing so?
Private hire vehicle operators come in all shapes and sizes. We have large operators, as the noble Lord says, that work in many local authority areas, working with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of drivers and taking millions of bookings. But we also have much smaller operators that work with only a handful of drivers, and we have one-man bands where a private hire vehicle driver licence holder also holds an operator’s licence so that he or she can take their own bookings. Context is the key to the use of these powers and is a determining factor when considering offences under the current legislation.
We recognise that the facts of the case will need to be determined at the time, but I can imagine that what might be reasonable and necessary to safeguard the public immediately may be different where the driver is also the operator compared with when they are not. It is an offence knowingly to use an unlicensed vehicle. It would seem a perverse situation where a one-man band that knowingly used an unlicensed driver and/or vehicle could have those licences suspended but could continue to accept bookings and dispatch other drivers and vehicles to carry the public when they have shown no regard to one of the fundamental requirements of the legislation that protects the public. Suspending the operator licence at the same time as the driver licence would seem a proportionate and reasonable use of these powers.
For larger operators, an example of what might trigger a suspension would be the discovery of the deliberate use of unlicensed drivers and/or vehicles which an enforcement officer judged to be a deliberate action on the part of the operator. Surely in that case, the noble Lord would want the operator suspended, if only principally for reasons of public safety, unless noble Lords think that that might be so far-fetched as to be unlikely. In my career, I have come across private hire vehicle operators in London who have deliberately used unlicensed vehicles and drivers; in the bus and coach industry, with which I am familiar, it has been the case that licensed operators have been found deliberately to use unlicensed vehicles and drivers. This is not so far-fetched as to be beyond making regulations about.
Anyway, we do not expect this power to be exercised frequently nor with impunity. The threshold for its use will be high, just as for driver and vehicle suspensions, and it is certainly not intended to be used as a means of punishment. These powers are to be used only if it is necessary in the interests of public safety to suspend a licence immediately, and certainly operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority which issued its licence to fulfil a prebooked journey is not of itself a risk to public safety, and it will be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, a vehicle or operator solely for that reason. So—
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. I appreciate it is late, but there are not many speakers in this debate so perhaps I can take a little time. The noble Lord said that context is important, and he is absolutely right. The context is that, if the driver is drunk, he is drunk in front of you now. The bald tyre, for example, is there present in front of you and you can see it. However, any evidence that the operator is operating by, for example, using other drivers can only ever be partial at a particular moment for a single law enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa. If it is true that the operator is operating in that way, then the evidence should be and would be given to its licensing authority—in my case in Birmingham—for the licensing authority to investigate. No doubt, if the case stacks up, they will remove the operating licence, but they should not do so on the basis of partial evidence at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa.
The other difficulty that the Minister has is that the test for these three immediate sanctions is the same test, which relates to a threat to public safety. The officer sitting there might say, “I have identified a threat to public safety. Now why shouldn’t I put all three of these into operation at the same time?” There is nothing in the statute that says that the one for the operator is to be used only in really difficult, dangerous or odd circumstances. So, why would you not use all three? The truth is the Minister is in a real difficulty over this. No doubt he might want to force it through on votes, but what he has put together makes no sense at all. I think he knows it, and he should be a little bit more generous in responding to this so that we might reach some agreement, because in terms of trying to protect public safety we are entirely on the same page.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My response to the noble Lord is this: let us use his example of an enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa—though it might equally be 2 am in some dark and unfriendly place with a vulnerable passenger. If an enforcement officer were to come across real evidence that the vehicle and driver were unlicensed and had been used deliberately by an operator, the context in which these amendments are framed is that suspension of the operator’s licence is, I think, warranted in that case. A big operator ought to take enormous care to make sure that it does not behave in such a manner, as it would be a threat to a big operator. But if it were found to be true of an enormously large operator, then it is a matter that ought to be immediately addressed. The public would expect it to be immediately addressed. The public would not say, “Oh, they’re big enough that the licensing authority can take a leisurely look at this”. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me that, in a similar case in the bus industry, the DVSA can discover the most flagrant breaches and it takes months to get those people in front of somebody who can deprive them of their operator’s licence.
Here, I think we are doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, which is that there is a genuine concern about public safety in taxi and private hire vehicles. Although it is an interim move, because the whole legislation is, frankly, outdated and needs to be fixed, this is an example of something which would be proportionate. If the action taken was not proportionate, it could be quickly reversed by the processes that are embodied in this amendment. So I reject the noble Lord’s proposition. I have thought it through, and I am not the least bit embarrassed in promoting it. I think I am rather more on the side of public safety than the noble Lord is. To accept his amendment would leave a gap in public protection and would perpetuate the inconsistencies in licensing and enforcement.
Quickly on the noble Lord’s Amendment 287A, the noble Lord heard me say that the Government have every intention of monitoring these arrangements very carefully. We will use all our powers to ensure that we collect the right data, that local authorities collect the right data and that, as a result, we understand what the effects of these amendments are when they pass into law, and we are willing to alter the way in which the arrangements operate in the light of the evidence that we get. I hope that I have said enough, without using all the words that I have been given, to persuade the noble Lord not to press Amendment 287A, because the Government have every intention, short of putting it on the face of the Bill, to collect exactly this for the most obvious reasons, which is that we need to know how it works and individual licensing authorities need to know how this will work in order that they can monitor and, if necessary, change their own behaviour.
Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press either of his amendments.
Member's explanatory statement
The definition of “regulated licence” would be added to clause 72 by another amendment in my name.
Lord Borwick
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Borwick, seeks to commence section 160(1) to (3) of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to minimum taxi accessibility requirements and ensure that the standards prescribed under Clause 65 of this Bill conform with those taxi accessibility requirements in the Equality Act 2010, with the intention of ensuring disabled persons can use taxis to travel in comfort and dignity.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I should first disclose my interests as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible London taxi and a past CEO of the manufacturer of London taxis. I thank the co-signers of my two amendments, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson; they have both encouraged me, as has my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have attached my name to both amendments. I cannot say that I have quite as long a history in accessible transport as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, does, but in the mid-1990s, I sat on the National Disability Council with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, which oversaw the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act. Back in the 1990s, the promises that were made on accessible transport felt like they were a very long way away. To be honest, in my 20s, I did not think I was going to live that long.
Considering the challenges that we face in accessible transport, the small gains that have been made have been slow and quite hard-fought. When I look at the provision of taxis, there is very much a difference between what is available in a city and what is available elsewhere. Where I live, in the north-east of England, it is almost impossible to get an accessible taxi. A friend of mine, an electric wheelchair user, came to visit last year. It took many hours over several days to even find provision for her to be able to use.
The challenges that we face are wider than just accessibility. There have been many cases of overcharging disabled people. There is wider access for people with other impairments in terms of discrimination, but the reality is that we have far from equal access. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, talks about the number of wheelchair users who are in the UK. It is hard to find the numbers, but what we do know is that changes and improvements to mobility aids mean that more people are probably using mobility aids to be able to travel than they have ever done before.
We have to think about how we can make travelling much easier for disabled people than it currently is, and how we join this up with other modes of transport. If I look at things such as rail replacement services, most of the buses are not accessible and disabled people have been stranded at railway stations because it has not been possible to get an accessible taxi. As yet, we do not know the impact that changes in Motability will have on quite a significant number of disabled people. Just for clarity, I am a recipient of PIP, but I do not have a Motability car; but I imagine that those changes that are coming and the significant decrease in the mileage allowance are going to make accessible transport and accessible taxis even more important for quite a large number of disabled people.
I think the answer is not just in taxis. We have to take a really long, hard look at transport for disabled people. So far, there is still a significant amount of discrimination. As I was adding my name to these amendments, a number of scooter users got in touch with me to raise issues that they have with using accessible taxis. Where they are available—quite often around school hours—they are used for accessible taxi trips to and from school, and even where they are available, there are large chunks of the day where disabled people are not able to access them. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because accessible taxis are a really important part of equal access for disabled people.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendments 268 and 287. In doing so, I should say that, although I welcome them, the fact that we are considering them this evening makes me sad, because they should not be necessary. The fact that they are exposes how little progress has been made, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said, in the 31 years since she and I served on the National Disability Council, advising the then Government on the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act. The case of continued taxi inaccessibility, which these amendments modestly seek to remedy, provides just one example of the lack of enforcement of a law and subsequent laws that promised equality and, crucially, sustained attitudinal change.
Therefore, it should surprise no one that the failure to enforce these laws is having the opposite effect to what was intended by the authors of the Disability Discrimination Act. Instead of positive attitudinal change and greater inclusion, a lack of enforcement of the law, together with a licence to vent the vile prejudice that is, sadly, the hallmark of social media, have together spawned a culture of renewed discrimination and impunity. Attitudinally, as we heard in the debate on government Amendment 334 to the Crime and Policing Bill—which, incidentally, I supported—we are going backwards as far as disabled people are concerned.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s amendment. He has done as much to empower disabled people when it comes to transport as anybody in this country, not just in Parliament.
To continue my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s theme, this is about the unacceptability of waiting—not waiting for legislation to pass but waiting on the kerb-side for an accessible taxi which may never come and waiting on the phone to be told there are no accessible cabs in your local area. Imagine that being told to any other group in society and it being accepted and acceptable for 31 years. It is not even a matter of passing legislation; it is on the face of a Bill—though after 31 years, I imagine the text is already rising off that vellum as we speak. How many more years do disabled people have to wait on that kerb-side or in their homes, or on the end of a telephone, to not get an accessible taxi?
The Government talk about growth as their overriding principle for government, and quite right, but if that is their overriding objective then policy across all departments has to be focused on that. If the Government want more disabled people in work, we need accessible taxis; if the Government want greater health equality and health outcomes for disabled people, we need accessible taxis; and if they want bright, diverse, talented, disabled people to be fully empowered to bring those talents to bear in their local communities, we need accessible taxis.
There is nothing overreaching about these amendments from my noble friend. They are modest and merely seek to bring about something which should have happened not years but decades ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has the great good fortune to have the power of a Minister of the Crown. I suggest that he uses that power to empower disabled people and accept these amendments. If he will not do that, who will? If not now, for all those disabled people who have waited for 31 years, when?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution to this short debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his tireless advocacy for improved mobility for those with a disability. It is sad that we will no longer have that advocacy available at the end of this Session.
I want to pick up three points arising from the Minister’s response when we debated this in Committee. First, he said that there would not be enough time. He said:
“We will need to consult on them”—
that is, the new standards—
“and there is a risk that setting a deadline could negatively impact our ability to undertake a meaningful consultation”.
The deadline in the amendment is three years. The Cabinet’s guidance for a consultation period is actually 12 weeks. Honestly, to plead the lack of time is not a good excuse for resisting the amendment.
Secondly, the amendment was criticised because it applied only to taxis, and therefore it potentially excluded disabled people in those parts of the country where there was reliance on private vehicles. It seems to me that that is an argument for actually extending the provisions to private hire vehicles, rather than using it as an excuse to resist the amendment.
Then we had an argument which I simply did not understand. It says in Hansard that
“the noble Lord’s amendment would require every taxi in England to comply with a single set of standards, taking no account of the variety of access needs that disabled people have”.
The position in London is that we have a standard for the whole of London—we have had that for 30 years. I believe it is the case that, within London, we have the same range of disability as exists elsewhere in the country, so I did not follow that argument. The Minister then said:
“This approach would not only be exclusionary but would risk infringing the Government’s legal public sector equality duty to consider the impact on people with all protected characteristics”.
I do not believe that any case has been raised in London that the existing single standard for taxis is in breach of the Disability Act. I did not follow that at all.
Finally, I appreciate that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but his response was simply to rely on that fact that:
“Existing government ‘best practice’ … recommends that each licensing authority develops an inclusive … plan”.
He went on to say:
“I encourage them to act to ensure that there are sufficient wheelchair-accessible vehicles”,—[Official Report, 5/3/26; cols. GC 547-49.]
and that they will look again at “other accessibility standards”. But there was nothing in his speech that gave any certainty or guarantee at all that the position would change by a specific date.
Unless the Minister can move a little from what he said in Committee, I again will be with my noble friend in the Division Lobby if a Division is called.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I swore some months ago that I would never support another Tory amendment, but here I am supporting the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. He has the Green vote this evening, such as it is. This is mainly to justify my still being here at two hours past my bedtime. I regret that he is leaving and hope that the Minister will perhaps see this as a gift to a hereditary who will be much missed.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, we completely understand the thinking behind these amendments and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, around minimum taxi requirements and the Equality Act. We sense his frustration, and that of other Members of this House, at how long these changes are taking.
Let us be very clear that “taxis” in this amendment refers to hackney carriages—known more commonly, certainly to those of us in London, as black cabs. They are less than one in five of the whole taxi and private hire network. In cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, they is already 100% accessibility, but, as we have heard, the picture elsewhere is less uniform and in many parts of the country the network is completely provided by private hire vehicles. So this amendment, as we have heard, would not address the wider network that serves most of the country and areas outside of big cities, which is a real issue.
It is important that every region has the right balance of vehicles available to meet local needs and demands, and that will of course change over time. We welcome plans to ensure that each licensing area will bring forward an inclusive service plan. We welcome the new national standards, which are important, and, we hope, in the not too distant future, as we talked about earlier, new legislation covering taxis and private hire too. Once we start getting that together, this issue will be tackled in a far more comprehensive way than is set out in this amendment.
We absolutely believe that we need an accessible taxi and private hire service, available to you wherever you live, so that you can get out and enjoy your life, and live your life fully. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will consider this carefully and work with the Minister to find a way forward that works for disabled passengers across the country, not just in those areas where black taxis exist and are available. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his amendment. In preparation for this Bill, the amendment has taken up a lot of time and involved a lot of meetings with representatives of different bodies, including taxi drivers and private hire vehicles. The one that most struck me, which stays with me, and the only one I will refer to, involved a not-young gentleman who clearly had a taxi background and had risen to have some responsibility in an organisation. He had been in the business all his life, and I thought he was going to be very dismissive of this and would not be interested in this sort of thing going through because it would only disrupt the trade. He said to me, “Well, of course we’ve got to do something about this. These people deserve a service”. That is it. That is the case. They deserve a service. There is no need to make any further case. In my view, there is no answer to that case. They deserve a service.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his commitment and contribution to accessibility for disabled people in taxis over many years. Without him, the iconic London taxi would not be the accessible vehicle it is today and the lives of many would be significantly curtailed. He is right to say that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, carried over into the Equality Act 2010, have never been taken up by the numerous Governments that have come and gone, and he says that it is time that they were. I cannot account for previous Governments’ behaviours. He was inclined in his speech to blame the department, but in fact the department is the Government of the day, but we are here.
The question that has to be asked is: why can I and the Government not support his amendment now? My answer is that the circumstances have changed. Thirty-odd years ago, the now two very closely aligned industries of the taxi industry and the private hire industry were in an entirely different place. Private hire vehicles were not licensed and illegal in many places. Now, the taxi has been joined across England by much increased numbers of licensed private hire vehicles, about which the noble Lord is not concerned, but I am. Some 82% of the combined fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles across England—more than 300,000 vehicles—are the latter, and in the modern age of apps, mobile phones and technology, for many people and in many places the two services are very nearly completely interchangeable.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, we now know that disability is about not only people in wheelchairs but people with many other characteristics too, and one size fits all for the accommodation of people with disabilities is not now what this large market is all about. Indeed, a wheelchair-accessible vehicle for some is one that is not suitable for others. Across England, circumstances differ enormously, which I hope the noble Lord will recognise from the round table that we had some weeks ago and from the views of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that he heard more regularly when he came to visit me in my office. In many places in England, especially in rural areas, the taxi fleet is generally smaller, sometimes virtually absent, especially in places that do not have a large town centre or transport hub, such as a railway station where a taxi rank would generally be placed, and most journeys are by private hire vehicles. This long-term growth in the number of private hire vehicles is a trend we cannot ignore. In rural areas, where the amendment would mandate an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet, private hire vehicles hugely outnumber taxis and, crucially, the noble Lord’s amendment would not apply to those vehicles. Disabled passengers, including wheelchair users in those areas, would therefore not benefit.
As I said in Committee, the department’s independent Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s view is that mixed fleets of wheelchair-accessible vehicles and non-wheelchair-accessible vehicles provide a more inclusive service that supports both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled passengers than one that consists only of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. As I have also previously said, the cost of mandating every taxi in England to be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle would be extremely high. The noble Lord is right that new vehicle prices are not the same as second-hand vehicle prices, but if his vehicle is worth only £1,000, it would not be in service as a taxi for much longer in virtually any town or city in England. There would be a significant cost of some magnitude for thousands of self-employed drivers who are not able to call on reserves of funding to make this change. This requirement would run the risk of taxi drivers being forced to license as private hire vehicle drivers to avoid a cost they could not afford or even to leave the industry completely. Indeed, the traders raised exactly those concerns in response to the mandating of an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet.
To summarise, if accepted and implemented, this amendment would realistically result in fewer taxi services being available across the country for all passengers, including disabled passengers, particularly in rural areas, meaning at best longer wait times for all who wish to travel by taxi and at worst no supply and no independent travel. The Government’s position is that we should use the powers to set national standards for licensing to mandate the completion of disability equality training for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff who take bookings and dispatch vehicles for private hire vehicle operators. This will ensure that every driver and staff member has the knowledge, skills and confidence to support disabled passengers appropriately. National standards will be subject to public consultation, but we intend to use the regulations to drive greater accessibility for all.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that the integration of taxis into wider public transport is very important. The Government’s integrated transport strategy will be published shortly. Her example of the unavailability of accessible taxis in any areas outside London, particularly in school hours, is germane to the real solution to this. My department already recommends in its best practice guidance that licensing authorities should assess the demand for wheelchair-accessible vehicles in their areas. They should set out the actions that they will take to meet that demand as part of a mixed fleet by publishing these in an inclusive service plan, and we will reiterate this.
Throughout this process, we have been clear that the measures being taken through this Bill are just the beginning of a broader package of reforms for taxi and private hire vehicle regulation, which is thoroughly out of date, as I think noble Lords would generally agree. My department is carrying out engagement with stakeholders to look at the broader issues, including a consultation just closed on changing licensing authorities to the significantly lower number of local transport authorities, and on accessibility for disabled passengers, looking to build consensus about what the best mechanisms are to tackle them.
In conclusion, the noble Lord’s campaign to see the execution of what has been promised for a very long time through previous legislation is not in vain. I understand perfectly well the symbolism of these amendments, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Holmes, but we need to translate it into the reality of today’s position across England, where over four-fifths of vehicles used in this way are not taxis and the demands of everyone, including ambulant disabled and disabled people in wheelchairs, need to be met. The Government intend to do just that through the application of mandatory national standards on local transport authorities, as I have described, and thus I hope he will be able to consider that his objective will be achieved at last and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. To correct one of his points, the reason that my taxi is worth only £1,000 despite its very low mileage is because of the emissions standards in London, not because it is useless outside London. It would be useful in a market which does not have those same emissions regulations, but in London it is not worth more than £1,000.
The Minister said at the beginning that circumstances have changed. That is the basis of my problem, because circumstances have not changed in 31 years but they should have done. The Minister has the opportunity to change the circumstances, and I think he should do so. I am pressing this amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
“Duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas(1) The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) Section 5 (duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) an English licensing authority (“the first authority”) becomes aware of—(i) relevant information, or(ii) information about a breach of a national standard,(aa) the information relates to a person who has driven in the first authority’s area in reliance on a driver’s licence or a relevant licence granted by another licensing authority or a relevant authority (“the second authority”),”.(4) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “relevant information” substitute “information of which it has become aware”;(b) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “relevant”. (5) After section 6 insert—“6A Production and publication of collated data(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify descriptions of relevant collated data, and(b) require English licensing authorities to produce and publish that collated data.(2) In this section “relevant collated data” means—(a) data derived from information provided in accordance with section 5, and(b) data derived from information about actions taken in accordance with section 6.(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This would amend the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 by extending the duty to report in section 5 (so that it also applies to information about breaches of national standards) and enabling collated data to be produced and published.
“Temporary suspension of licences
Power to suspend licence temporarily(1) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated driver licence if—(a) the licence relates to the driver of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(2) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated vehicle licence if—(a) the licence relates to a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(3) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated PHV operator licence if—(a) the licence relates to the operation of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(4) A power under this section to suspend a licence is exercisable by an enforcement officer in respect of a licence granted by any licensing authority in England (whether or not it is the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer).”Member's explanatory statement
This would give a taxi or PHV licensing authority a power to temporarily suspend a licence (whether it was issued by that authority or a different licensing authority) in the interests of public safety.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I beg to move.
Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280)
Lord Moylan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power in Government Amendment 280 for an enforcement officer to temporarily suspend a regulated private hire vehicle operator licence.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, an emergency power of suspension to be exercised in the middle of the night is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a drunk driver. It is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a bald tyre or a defective vehicle. To put an entire operation out of action and make that operation illegal immediately—overnight, in another city—is a completely disproportionate use of the power of enforcement. I believe my amendment to Amendment 280 is appropriate and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily)(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer decides to suspend a licence under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily).(2) The enforcement officer must give notice of the suspension to the person the officer believes to have been driving the relevant vehicle at the time the officer decided to suspend the licence.(3) The suspension takes effect at the time when the notice is given to the person.(4) The effect of the suspension is that the licence holder may not exercise any of the rights granted by the licence.(5) The suspension ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when the notice was given. (6) But that is subject to section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence)(3).(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) amend subsection (5) so as to provide for suspensions to cease to have effect at a different time, and(b) make consequential amendments of section (Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension)(2).(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of suspension notices;(b) the manner in which suspension notices are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would set out how a licence is temporarily suspended and the duration of the suspension.
“Suspension notice given to person who is not licence holder(1) This section applies if—(a) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice to a person, and(b) before the end of the suspension, the enforcement officer becomes aware that a different person is the holder of the licence (the “licence holder”).(2) The enforcement officer must notify the licence holder that the suspension notice has been given.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the period within which notifications under this section are to be given;(c) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the holder of a suspended licence to be notified of the suspension if they were not driving the vehicle at the time of the suspension.
“Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension(1) This section applies if—(a) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice in respect of a licence, and(b) the responsible licensing authority is not the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer.(2) The enforcement officer must notify the responsible licensing authority of the suspension before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time when the notice was given.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
If a licence is temporarily suspended and the licence was granted by a different authority, this would require the suspension to be notified to the licensing authority which granted the licence.
“Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice in respect of a licence (the “suspended licence”). (2) If the suspending authority is not the responsible licensing authority, this section does not apply unless the notification required by section (Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension) has been given.(3) The responsible licensing authority must—(a) terminate the suspension,(b) extend the period of suspension, or(c) allow the suspension to cease to have effect at the end of the period of suspension.(4) The responsible licensing authority must notify the holder of the suspended licence of—(a) the authority’s decision under subsection (3), and(b) any further extension of the period of suspension.(5) If the responsible licensing authority does not terminate the suspension, it may also notify the holder of any steps which would (if taken) result in the suspension being terminated.(6) After making the decision under subsection (3), the responsible licensing authority must decide whether and how to exercise its other functions as a licensing authority in relation to the suspended licence.(7) If the suspending authority is not the responsible licensing authority, the responsible licensing authority must notify the suspending authority of—(a) any decision by the responsible licensing authority under subsection (3);(b) any further extension of the period of suspension;(c) any decision by the responsible licensing authority under subsection (6).(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the making of decisions under subsection (3) or (6).(9) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about the period within which those decisions must be made.(10) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the extension of periods of suspension.(11) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—(a) the length by which periods of suspension may be extended under subsection (3);(b) whether and how, and the length by which, periods of suspension may be extended more than once.(12) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the period within which notifications under this section are to be given;(c) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.(13) In this section—“period of suspension” means—(a) the period of suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily) (5), or(b) if that period has been extended under this section, that extended period;“suspended licence” has the meaning given in subsection (1);“suspending authority” , in relation to the suspended licence, means the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the enforcement officer who suspended the licence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would set out what a licensing authority is required to do if a licence issued by it is temporarily suspended.
“Appeals and compensation(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations providing for the holder of a licence that is suspended under the licence suspension provisions to appeal to a magistrates’ court against—(a) the suspension, or(b) any decision under section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence) (3).(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for compensation to be payable by licensing authorities in cases where—(a) an appeal under regulations under subsection (1) is successful, or(b) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice but fails to give notice as required under section (Suspension notice given to person who is not licence holder)(2) in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable for the officer to have done so.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) the amounts of compensation, or(b) the minimum or the maximum amounts of compensation.(4) The regulations may, in particular, confer (whether on a court or tribunal or person)—(a) the function of determining liability to pay compensation,(b) the function of determining the amount of compensation that is payable (in cases where the amount is not fixed by regulations under subsection (3)), or(c) other functions relating to compensation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable a person to be paid compensation if certain provisions relating to the suspension of licences are not complied with.
“Enforcement officers(1) In the licence suspension provisions, “enforcement officer” means a person appointed or authorised by a licensing authority in England (the “appointing licensing authority”) to carry out functions conferred by those provisions on behalf of that authority.(2) Accordingly—(a) functions expressed in the licence suspension provisions as functions of enforcement officers are functions of the appointing licensing authority that are exercisable on that authority’s behalf by the officers appointed or authorised by that authority in accordance with subsection (1), and(b) a reference to a licensing authority in section 69 includes a reference to an enforcement officer.(3) Where a function is expressed as a function of the enforcement officer who gave a suspension notice, that function may instead be exercised by any other enforcement officer appointed or authorised by the appointing licensing authority.(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the issue and use of documents, clothing or badges or other marks to identify persons as enforcement officers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make provision about the “enforcement officers” who are to exercise the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““36A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThe provisions of this Act relating to the licensing of hackney carriages are subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““45A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Part is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““2A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““2A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““1A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““1A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would limit the power to make regulations amending Acts of Parliament, so that it cannot be used in relation to future Acts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make all regulations about national standards subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
“(3A) Regulations under—(a) section (Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily))(7), or(b) section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence)(11),are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make certain regulations relating to the new functions of temporarily suspending licences.
““enforcement area” , in relation to an enforcement officer, means both of the following—(a) the area of the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer, in relation to the suspension of any regulated licence;(b) the whole of the rest of England, but only in relation to the suspension of a regulated licence granted by the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer;“enforcement officer” has the meaning given in section (Enforcement officers)(1);“licence suspension provisions” means sections (Power to suspend licence temporarily) to (Enforcement officers) and this section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add new definitions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”
““regulated driver licence” means—(a) a taxi driver licence, or(b) a PHV driver licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add a new definition relating to temporary suspension of licences.
(a) a taxi driver licence,(b) a taxi vehicle licence,(c) a PHV driver licence,(d) a PHV vehicle licence, or(e) a PHV operator licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would move the definition of “regulated licence” from clause 64 to clause 72.
““regulated PHV operator licence” means a PHV operator granted by a licensing authority in England;“regulated vehicle licence” means—(a) a taxi vehicle licence, or(b) a PHV vehicle licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;“relevant vehicle” means a vehicle that an enforcement officer reasonably believes is licensed by—(a) a taxi vehicle licence, or(b) a PHV vehicle licence;“responsible licensing authority” , in relation to a regulated licence, means the licensing authority with the power to revoke the licence;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add new definitions relating to temporary suspension of licences.
““suspension notice” means notice of a suspension given in accordance with section (Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily))(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add a new definition relating to temporary suspension of licences.
“ChapterLicensing of gambling premisesLicensing of gambling premises: impact assessments(1) The Gambling Act 2005 is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In section 153 (licensing authorities’ functions: principles to be applied), in subsection (3), for “section” substitute “sections 165A and”.(3) After section 153 insert—“153A Gambling impact assessments(1) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a gambling impact assessment”) containing a statement that the licensing authority consider that the grant of any relevant licence, or of any further relevant licences, in respect of premises in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment (the “affected part or parts”) is not likely to be reasonably consistent with one or more of the licensing objectives because of—(a) the cumulative impact of relevant licences in respect of premises in the affected part or parts, or(b) other reasons which relate to that licensing objective, or those licensing objectives, and to the affected part or parts.(2) A gambling impact assessment must set out the evidence for the authority's opinion as set out in the assessment in accordance with subsection (1).(3) A gambling impact assessment may include a statement which is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement.(4) A gambling impact assessment may relate—(a) to all relevant licences, or(b) only to relevant licences of a kind described in the assessment.(5) A licensing authority must—(a) from time to time review any gambling impact assessment published by them,(b) if they think it necessary in the light of a review, revise or withdraw the assessment, and(c) publish any revision.(6) Before publishing a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment), the licensing authority must consult the persons mentioned in section 349(3).(7) For the purposes of the consultation, the licensing authority must provide the persons mentioned in section 349(3) with the following information—(a) the reasons why they are considering publishing or revising a gambling impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they are considering describing in the assessment;(c) whether they consider that the assessment will relate to all relevant licences or only to relevant licences of a particular kind.(8) In determining—(a) whether to publish a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment) or withdraw an assessment, or(b) the terms of a gambling impact assessment,a licensing authority may not have regard to the expected demand for facilities of the kinds that would require relevant licences to be operated lawfully.(9) If a licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment, the authority must include a summary of the assessment in the three-year licensing policy.(10) For provision about the role of gambling impact assessments in the process of applying for relevant licences, see section 165A. (11) In this section—“relevant licence” means—(a) a bingo premises licence,(b) an adult gaming centre premises licence,(c) a family entertainment centre premises licence, or(d) a betting premises licence;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(4) After section 165 insert—“165A Rejection of application: gambling impact assessment(1) This section applies to an application for a relevant licence (the “prospective licence”) if—(a) the licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment in accordance with section 153A, and(b) the licensing authority’s three-year licensing policy includes a presumption that the authority will reject an application for a relevant licence if the licence is within the scope of the assessment.(2) It is lawful for the licensing authority to reject the application solely on the ground that the prospective licence is within the scope of the gambling impact assessment (and therefore regardless of anything, including any legislation, which would otherwise support or require the grant of the prospective licence).(3) But a rejection of the application is not lawful on that ground (whether by virtue of subsection (2) or otherwise) if the person applying for the prospective licence —(a) asserts in the application that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objective or objectives to which the gambling impact assessment relates, and(b) then shows that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives;(and, accordingly, inconsistency with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives cannot otherwise be a ground for rejecting the application).(4) For the purposes of this section, a licence is “within the scope of” a gambling impact assessment if the licence would (if granted)—(a) relate to premises in the part or parts of the authority’s area described in the assessment in accordance with section 153A(1), and(b) be a kind of licence to which the assessment applies in accordance with section 153A(1) (whether by virtue of section 153A(4)(a) or (b)).(5) But if the assessment is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement, a licence is not within the scope of the assessment unless (additionally)—(a) the grant of the prospective licence, or(b) the grant of that licence and any other relevant licences for which applications are being considered at the same time,would result in that number being exceeded.(6) This section does not affect the powers of a licensing authority to decide what is included in their three-year licensing policy; and, in particular, it does not affect any powers—(a) to make other kinds of presumptions, and(b) to act lawfully in accordance with the terms of other kinds of presumptions. (7) In this section—“relevant licence” has the same meaning as in section 153A;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(5) In section 349 (three-year licensing policy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (3) does not require consultation in relation to a—(a) gambling impact assessment (within the meaning of section 153A) of which a summary is included in the statement being prepared or revised, or(b) a presumption of the kind referred to in section 165A(1)(b) included in that statement;and, instead, see section 153A(6).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the Gambling Act 2005 to enable licensing authorities to adopt, and act in accordance with, policies aimed at preventing the grant of gambling licences in order to respond to (a) the cumulative impact of multiple gambling premises or (b) other reasons relating to the licensing objectives in that Act.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for raising the important issue of tackling gambling harms on our high streets. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates about the need for local authorities to have the tools they need to tackle gambling harms and make licensing decisions that are in the best interests of their communities. We have therefore tabled this amendment to strengthen the ability of licensing authorities to issue what will be known as a gambling impact assessment.
The gambling impact assessment can set out that granting a licence for gambling premises in specific areas is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. Such an assessment must be based on evidence showing that premises in a specific area risk undermining the licensing objectives; for example, by causing harm to children or other vulnerable people. This evidence must be published in the assessment.
We anticipate that gambling impact assessments will apply predominantly in areas where licensing authorities want to limit the granting of further gambling premises licences on cumulative impact grounds. However, it will also be possible to prevent the granting of a single licence in a specific area if the licensing authority believes there is evidence to show that this would not be likely to be consistent with the licensing objectives. This will help licensing authorities to more easily limit the number of gambling premises licences in their areas where this is justified.
Where gambling impact assessments apply, licensing authorities can adopt a policy that they will not grant any new premises licences in the areas covered by the assessment. However, this is in no way a blanket ban. Each application for a premises licence must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a licensing authority would be required to grant a licence if the applicant provides evidence to show that the licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. This will deliver on commitments made in the English devolution White Paper and the Pride in Place strategy, and it will help local authorities to curate healthy and vibrant high streets that reflect local need.
I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking in such great detail and with such knowledge on this. I also thank all my colleagues in local authorities who I know will be very pleased to hear that this is being done. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as chair of Action on Gambling. I thank the Minister for her very kind words just now. As she said, giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high streets is something I have pursued for many years. For instance, 22 years ago in the other place—I was looking back at the record earlier today—when opposing what became the Gambling Act 2005, I said that there was a need to provide
“strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/04; col. 62.]
The need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises remains. Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime and gambling harm, causing great harm to individuals, their families and the communities in which they live.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the Observer reported on the closure of the very last bank in a historic coastal town. That bank is now being taken over by an adult gaming centre, providing gambling machines and all sorts of other opportunities to gamble. It is going to operate for 24 hours a day. Many members of the local community were violently opposed to this and, not surprisingly, the council itself was opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of the former bank into an adult gaming centre were rejected.
Nevertheless, Admiral, which was making the proposal, took its application on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As a result, the rejection by the council—despite all the opposition—was overturned. Indeed, the Observer article pointed out that between 2021 and 2025 there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by the local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. There is still an urgent need to do something about it.
One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a section in the Gambling Act 2005 that says councils must have an “aim to permit” gambling premises to open. Therefore, the best way of dealing with the problem will be to delete the “aim to permit” section from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous Government nor the present Government were willing to do that. So I proposed an alternative: to use the cumulative impact assessment procedure, which had been successfully introduced many years ago to help councils stop the proliferation of premises selling alcohol. Clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was very effective, used in the way the Minister has described. I was absolutely delighted that the Government said that they would use the approach of the cumulative impact assessment procedure.
The Minister knows that I have a slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have had a discussion about it. But she assured me—and I quote from her letter to me—that she is confident that
“the amendment as drafted will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities’ powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm”.
I hope she is right. I am increasingly confident that she is. On the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have come forward with this amendment. We believe it is right that the cumulative impact of gambling licences in an area should be taken into account. We are pleased that the Government have sought to respond to the amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. That said, we note that this amendment is somewhat longer and more complex than the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord. We fear that, as a result, it may lack some clarity—in particular what it means for an applicant to show consistency with licensing objectives and how the evidence would be assessed. The regulatory framework should be communicated in a way that is understandable and reliable for business and local authorities alike to prevent inconsistencies and confusion, which could then result in costly appeals or legal challenges. I ask the Minister to respond to that, but I thank her for bringing forward this proposal. We will also be supporting it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. To respond briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jamieson, at the moment there is an aim to permit, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, in Section 153 of the Gambling Act. In effect, this amendment will flip the burden of proof in areas covered by gambling impact assessments, with a presumption in favour of granting a licence resulting from “aim to permit” then becoming a presumption in favour of rejecting the application. However, it is important to note that licensing decisions will continue to be grounded in the existing regulatory framework, requiring consistency with licensing objectives. That is the key point.
Gambling impact assessments will be an important first step in strengthening the powers that local authorities have to shape their high streets. They are part of the wide range of tools that local authorities have to regulate gambling in their areas. We will of course consider whether any further measures are needed in this area during the development of the high street strategy, which will be published later this year.
“Chief Planner After section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (local planning authorities), insert—“1A Local planning authorities and strategic authorities: Chief Planner(1) Each local planning authority and each strategic authority, as defined in section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (strategic authorities), must appoint an officer, to be known as Chief Planner, for the purposes of their functions in relation to planning and spatial development.(2) Two or more authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge for both or all of the authorities the functions of Chief Planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as Chief Planner for both or all of these authorities.(3) An authority may not appoint a person as Chief Planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require authorities with planning and spatial development functions to appoint a Chief Planner to lead this professional work.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak for one minute on Amendment 307. It is in my name but has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for months, and he is very sorry not to be here tonight. It is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It would require local authorities and strategic authorities to have a named, qualified, responsible chief planner, shared with another authority if so desired. After the underresourcing of local authority planning for 20 years or more, leading to delay and frustration all round, this amendment would raise the status and profile of planning within local government. It would identify the responsible officer in each authority, which would speed up decision-making and enhance accountability.
The amendment comes with the endorsement of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Better Planning Coalition, which represents the 40 key planning-related organisations across the country. It would give the Government the perfect opportunity to help restore the position of planning to front and centre within local government, while increasing the respect of council members and the confidence of developers and providers. I see no reason why the Government are not enthusiastically positive about the amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Duty to deliver on the environment and climate changeStrategic authorities, mayoral, or local authorities must, in the exercise of their functions, and when delivering on areas of competence in section 2, take all reasonable steps to contribute to— (a) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local government was aligned with the Government’s national targets for climate change and the environment, and give them a duty to advance progress towards meeting them.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Amendment 311. This amendment is to address a systemic issue that we and local authorities already face and will continue to face. That is the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, the related actions required and the costs of addressing these. Put simply, the amendment would require the new strategic authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute towards the UK’s legally binding targets that sit under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 when exercising their functions.
This is not just something we have been talking about in the House of Lords or the other place. There are lots of people outside of this place who want to see this as well. More than 500 local councillors, including 20 council leaders and a quarter of climate cabinet members, supported a letter that went to the Government about this. While some authorities have high levels of ambition, they all say that delivery is stymied by the lack of a duty—their words, not mine.
On the flip side, not all authorities have high ambitions to deliver, and we cannot create a postcode lottery. Climate change does not care what the personal views are of individuals in certain councils, even if they want us to believe so. The Government must ensure that contribution to delivery is across the board, and, as we raised with the Minister in a meeting with her before Easter Recess, some authorities have expressed that they do not intend to undertake work towards these targets. It will not happen without a duty.
It is also worth noting that the LGA has been working on this and undertook a consultation about the implementation of such a duty. It found that
“responses have revealed a clear consensus support, which the LGA has adopted as its headline position”
and that local authorities
“need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding and robust support to lead on climate action”.
So it is really very disappointing and, frankly, disheartening that, despite a wide base of support for this idea from local authorities, the Government have, in essence, dismissed it entirely and neither responded to my letter of last month nor addressed the points raised in the meeting that I and colleagues from across the parties had with the Minister before Easter. There are no good reasons not to do this when it comes down to it. London, in essence, already has a duty, and I have not heard any complaints that this is an issue in London. Indeed, it is likely why the capital is leaps and bounds ahead of other parts of the country when it comes to tackling these twin threats.
We ought to be really clear that are talking about duties which are legally binding on the Government to deliver, so I believe that it is perfectly right—and so do my colleagues— and acceptable that we give that duty to other tiers of government in this country.
I urge the Minister and the Government more widely to get on board with this and hope that the Minister can respond on why they are opposed to this statutory duty. How do they think that they are going to reach these binding targets without one? If they are waiting for a final report from the LGA, why are they not using this legislation to allow an enabling clause so that this can be achieved? I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for tabling this amendment.
We are fully supportive of the importance of addressing climate change and protecting the environment. The targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 are rightly ambitious and play a vital role in shaping national policy. However, we are not persuaded that placing an additional statutory duty of this kind on local authorities is the right approach. Local government is already subject to a wide and growing range of obligations. There is a risk that introducing a broad, undefined duty to take all reasonable steps could create uncertainty, duplication and legal complexity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, raised the issue of that survey of councils which wanted a statutory duty and the funding. This amendment would do nothing to address the funding and would potentially place quite significant financial burdens on local authorities without any funding to deliver on the duty. It would potentially compromise other statutory services. We believe that progress in this area is best achieved through clear national frameworks, through targeted support and partnership with local authorities, rather than through the creation of additional statutory duties of this nature—particularly if they have no funding. For those reasons, while we recognise the intent behind the amendment, we are unable to support it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for Amendment 311 and for the useful engagement that I have had with her and with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this issue. I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for was held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and hope that she will get it shortly.
I have consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. On net zero, the Government offer support for local government, including through the Local Power Plan, published by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which sets out the UK’s largest-ever public investment in community energy. Backed by up to £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1,000 local and community energy projects. Great British Energy’s support also includes the £10 million mayoral renewables fund. We are investing a landmark £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan up to 2030, including the £2.5 billion allocated to the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We fund five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net-zero projects and attract commercial investment.
Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to biodiversity targets, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On climate adaptation, the Government work closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts.
Given such existing support, it remains my opinion that adding a broad new statutory duty is not the right approach. Local authorities already operate within a wide range of environmental and climate-related duties. Introducing an additional, overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, and reduce local flexibility. Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank noble Lords for this very short debate. I thank the Minister for her comments and the noble Lord for his. What I am hearing is that it costs too much to actually fulfil our climate change commitments. I find that extraordinary, given how much we are seeing climate change drive up so many other costs day in, day out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have just set out a wide range of projects, some of them running into billions of pounds that the Government are spending on this topic.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply to that comment, but I also make the point that we are talking about devolved authorities. If we have climate change sceptics as the mayors of these devolved authorities, I can see very few of these opportunities being taken up. But I take the point being made and I beg leave to withdraw.
“18A In section 32(3) (consultation about proposed accounts and audit regulations)— (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the Local Audit Office,”;(b) for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) any external registration body.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add two minor amendments consequential on the new local audit regime.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in this group I will address several government amendments to Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, starting with government Amendment 312, which makes minor changes to an existing provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to ensure that it aligns with wider reforms to the local audit system. Technical amendments to the audit system at this time of night are guaranteed to be soporific, so I will get through as quickly as I can.
Section 32 of the 2014 Act enables the Secretary of State to make further provisions via accounts and audit regulations. These regulations can, for example, set requirements regarding the form, contents and publication of financial accounts. This amendment updates the list of consultees that a Secretary of State must consult before making or amending accounts and audit regulations. The amendment replaces the Comptroller and Auditor-General with the local audit office, and the addition of the local audit office reflects the fact that it will be central to the new audit system. The Comptroller, meanwhile, will no longer be responsible for the code of audit practice—that will pass to the local audit office.
The amendment also replaces recognised supervisory bodies with any external registration body, and this is in keeping with changes elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill maintains the concept of a register of local audit providers as the basis for the regulation, quality monitoring and oversight of professional conduct. The register will no longer be held by a recognised supervisory body. Instead, the local audit office will have the right to hold a register itself or to designate an external registration body to hold the register and deliver these regulatory functions on its behalf. The amendment would ensure that whichever body holds the register—either the local audit office or an external registration body—is consulted on accounts and audit regulations.
Government Amendments 319 to 324 are essential amendments to expand the scope of Schedules 7A and 7B to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to ensure that tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after 17 March 2026, and any subsequent rent reviews during the term of the tenancy, are also within scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type, such as options and rights of first refusal, may require the tenant to enter into a new tenancy on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used by landlords to avoid the ban’s effect and encourage gaming of the system, which we want to prevent.
Government Amendment 325A is an essential technical amendment to ensure that delegated powers across the Bill, which have been inserted into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, are consistent with the intended position. This would bring them into alignment with the position described in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum.
Government Amendment 327 will allow for regulation- or order-making powers within the Bill provisions concerning local scrutiny committees, charges payable by undertakers, executing works in maintainable highways and the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles to be commenced by commencement regulations at the appropriate time. The amendment achieves this by preventing these powers from commencing upon Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 318C. But in what is possibly my final contribution to the proceedings of this House, I want to make a couple of brief valedictory comments. It has been a privilege and an honour to have been elected to this place some 11 or 12 years ago and to take part. I do not say that lightly. I have had so many helpful tips and hints from Members on all sides of the House who have helped me stumble through the protocols. I include the doorkeepers and other officers of this place in my thanks and remarks.
I am disappointed that it should end with expulsion, not choice, but my family has form. I follow a tradition in that the first Thurlow in this place, in the late 18th century, was also expelled. He sat on the Woolsack at the time. I got off lightly.
I turn my attention to the Bill and thank the Minister for the meeting with the team last week. I refer to my interests as a former chartered surveyor who still has some practice in commercial property markets. My comments relate to Part 5 and banning upwards-only rent reviews, which has already been touched on by the Minister. This is a revision of the Landlord and Tenant Act and has no place in this unrelated Bill. It shows all the signs of an afterthought slipped in late in the day.
There was a lack of consultation. The Library briefing in the other place described it as a “surprise”, “not trialled” and “not a manifesto item”. Now before us and still with no proper consultation, it is being inserted into the Bill.
There was an impact study, but it was deeply flawed. I read it and it was very one-sided. There was not a single reference to the loss of capital value to landlords in this clause. Rental value is one of two principal elements of the valuation process for commercial property. Did the Government forget to consider it? Did they not understand how these values are arrived at? They should have consulted.
The clause is designed to help SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—and I agree 100% with that sentiment and with that sentiment being applied to banning upwards-only rent reviews. But the Bill treats SMEs in small properties as though they are the equivalent to office blocks in Canary Wharf or the City of London, data centres worth hundreds of millions of pounds, or other large logistics operations. They have nothing in common with SMEs. This is not a one-size-fits-all subject. SMEs need support, but the Bill should focus exclusively on them, not on big business.
There are good reasons for excluding large commercial properties. These days, large office blocks retail at over £1 billion each in these centres, and the buyers are sovereign wealth funds and big international investors. Removing upwards-only rent reviews rocks the stability of our landlord and tenant system and reduces the attraction of the UK versus competing centres abroad, and that, of course, impacts growth.
At the end of 2022, the IPF estimated the total value of the inventory of commercial property here at £900 billion. The property market was estimated at £138 billion by the LSE in 2024. I mention this to underscore the importance of the sector to the wider economy. If the Government really want growth, this clause is a clear act of self-harm. Destabilising the valuation base of the UK commercial property market will reduce inward investment. This clause adds risk.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Good morning, my Lords, and indeed it is good morning. I support Amendment 318C, which has just been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thurlow. I should start by declaring that I have a son who works for a commercial property company.
My noble friend Lord Thurlow made a series of powerful points about the effects of this amendment, and I agree with him that a one-size-fits-all approach to rent review clauses is not appropriate, given the very wide range of properties rented by businesses, from perhaps a single office or lock-up garage rented by an SME to thousands of square feet of custom-designed and built warehousing rented by a global corporate.
The Government’s intention of assisting SMEs by preventing upwards-only rent reviews is consistent with protecting tenants from exploitative landlords, and I have, and I am sure most noble Lords have, no difficulty at all with that. However, negotiations between large corporates and commercial property companies are conducted between well advised and experienced professionals. Such tenants are large, powerful and of high value, and commercial property companies make great efforts to attract them and agree terms across a variety of issues, of which rent reviews are but one. These often complex negotiations between large organisations are conducted by staff with, I suggest, a good deal more detailed training, knowledge and experience of the subject than, with the greatest of respect, most parliamentarians. Neither party needs any help or interference from Parliament about the specifics of rent review terms they negotiate to include or exclude as part of their discussions.
This all seems very far away from government business, much less any manifesto commitment, and more like a hastily considered afterthought to the Bill for the residential sector that was before this House some months ago. As my noble friend Lord Thurlow has set out, for large businesses it will introduce instability, destroy value, damage the confidence of lenders, shareholders and investors alike and harm the much mentioned growth agenda.
That brings me back to where I started: dealing with the difference between an SME and a large business and how we determine the cut-off point between them. Will the Minister consider revising this aspect of the Bill so that a prospective tenant that is a publicly listed company will have the ability to opt out and retain it as a negotiating point, rather than have this aspect of their negotiations predetermined by the Government? These are not SMEs brow-beaten by a grasping landlord but large and powerful entities quite capable of navigating the give and take in negotiating leases that meet their needs. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion as a practical way to improve this amendment and mitigate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, so I will be brief. I support the valedictory amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I also associate myself with what may be valedictory comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It is going to be a shame to lose their surveying expertise and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has contributed so valuably over the last year in all manner of property-related matters covering the built environment which underpins our economy and social infrastructure.
Clause 85 and the related Schedule 34 provide for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it is going to have so many unintended consequences that will chill new investment in all manner of privately funded capital projects. I note that this provision was not in the manifesto nor trailed prior to the publication of the Bill. It has simply been fly-tipped at the end of this Bill, where it sticks out like a sore thumb in a jarring juxtaposition with the Bill’s other provisions.
I support Amendment 318C and its intention to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, but there is a serious risk of further damaging overseas investor confidence in the UK. If we are to attract private investment in large-scale developments, which may include data centres, city office blocks, mixed-use developments with residential property above them, the City of London and huge warehouse fulfilment centres, some sort of revenue growth is required over the life of the asset, without which investments will be placed elsewhere in other countries and other jurisdictions.
Setting small and medium-sized enterprises to one side for the moment, the large-scale tenants of these buildings are, so to speak, grown-up adults. I am not sure that Amazon needs additional protections from the law when contracting for a distribution warehouse. It is for the market and the law of contract to determine that precise equilibrium between those who take the risk of putting up the building and those who take the risk of occupying it. It is certainly not for government in a market economy to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach. This will chill not just future building but also the existing carrying value of those property assets which are owned by pension funds and whose rents support our senior citizens in retirement. Once again, it is the poorest in society who will be adversely affected by this misguided and misdirected sixth-form debating society approach to our economy.
I am grateful to the former Ernst & Young ITEM Club chief economist Martin Beck, who tells me that a blanket ban, as contemplated by this Bill, will cause an £11 billion downgrade of pension fund assets, meaning £2 billion less construction investment per year in the UK—and overall, when everything is taken into account, a £4.2 billion a year hit to our national economy. We need large-scale investments to grow the economy and to provide work for groundworkers, brickies, roofers, painters, decorators and our pensioners.
Schedule 34 represents yet another act of self-inflicted harm to our economy and our way of life, reducing our international investor confidence in the stability of UK plc with our rule of contract and well-established property rights, chasing away inward investment by a Government who say they are keen on growth but act in every respect to damage it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential in nature, relating to Parts 4, 5 and 6, and we do not intend to challenge them in any way.
I am pleased that I have this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well, although he has not actually said that this is his valedictory speech. When I was a Minister on the other side of the House, both noble Lords were supportive at times but challenging at other times. We had quite a lot of fun doing Bills such as what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and I sincerely thank them both for the knowledge of the industry that they brought to the House. That has been excellent and has helped me a great deal to understand the industry much better. They are going to be really missed. I thank them very much for everything that they did to help me in government—and they have helped me a bit in opposition, as well.
The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, raises important questions about the scope of provisions relating to upward-only rent reviews and their application, particularly to SMEs. All I can say at this time of night is that I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response on this one because there are questions to be answered.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I had not realised that the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, may well be leaving. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, it has been a pleasure working with them over a long time on a range of planning and infrastructure Bills. Their level of expertise has been incredibly valuable, along with that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has retired, and they are going to be missed. I say to the Government that the House of Lords has to have the expertise required to undertake the examination of Bills like this. The quality of contribution has been very high, and I personally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, have appreciated that immensely.
There is an issue about upward-only rent reviews. I am, in theory, supportive of enabling SMEs to benefit from rent reviews that can reduce costs. The issue of the very big rent payers, huge property, is one that we need to think further about. For the moment, as I have been supportive of the Government’s intentions towards upward-only rent reviews, I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I add my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, for their service to this House. In my relatively short time as a Minister, their expertise on all three of the Bills that I have brought before the House, and when I was a shadow Minister working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, has been invaluable. Their engagement has always been constructive and thoughtful, if sometimes a bit more challenging than a Minister would hope for—but that is a good thing and I am not criticising it. I have truly valued the expertise that they have brought to this House, particularly about commercial property markets. That has been incredibly helpful to all of us. We will miss them.
It is true that tenants from larger businesses that do not meet the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise are likely to be fully aware of the effect of upwards-only rent review clauses and have the ability to negotiate out of them if they so wish. However, the inflationary pressures on rents caused by such clauses affect all businesses, regardless of size or sector. Allowing exemptions of this kind for a limited number of businesses that meet certain criteria would risk creating a two-tier property market that would lead to significant geographical variation. While some effect on property values is possible as a result of the policy counteracting rent inflation, our analysis in the Bill’s impact assessment suggests that economic costs would be outweighed by the wider benefits, including to business competitiveness and market dynamism, and there is clear evidence around having a more level playing field with international investments.
“(2A) In section 104(9A) (which is inserted by Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act and introduces Schedule 5AA to LDEDCA 2009), omit “and audit committees”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.
“(4) In Schedule 5AA (inserted by Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act)—(a) in the heading, omit “and audit committee”;(b) omit paragraph 9 and the preceding italic heading.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.
“(2A) In section 15(1A) (which is inserted by Schedule (MayoralCCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act and introduces Schedule 1A to LURA 2023), omit “and audit committees”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.
“(5) In Schedule 1A (inserted by Schedule (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act)—(a) in the heading, omit “and audit committee”;(b) omit paragraph 9 and the preceding italic heading.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal that wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.
Baroness Berridge
“Rutland: status as a ceremonial county(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain), in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—
“Rutland | Rutland”” |
This new Clause would preserve Rutland’s Lord Lieutenancy and ceremonial county status.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 317 seeks to amend the Lieutenancies Act 1997 to ensure the continuation of Rutland as a ceremonial county with its own lord-lieutenant. I am grateful to the Minister for her email today relating to this matter, and for acknowledging
“the unique circumstances, given that Rutland’s ceremonial status derives from its reestablishment in 1997 as both a district and a county for its area”.
The local government reorganisation criteria automatically require Rutland to lose its county council status. That is perhaps not surprising, as it had at the last census a population of around 41,000. So yet again Rutland will disappear as a local government entity, and due to these unique circumstances the lord-lieutenancy will also disappear. The dissolution of Rutland County Council also ends the lord-lieutenancy of Rutland.
This is the second time in my lifetime that I have been involved in a campaign regarding Rutland’s status. Back in the 1990s it merely meant obtaining a Rutland passport. Yes, there was even talk of Rutland becoming like the Vatican, and Rutlanders delighted in sending photographs from far-flung places to the local newspaper showing off their Rutland passports—for example, outside the Sydney Opera House—as well, of course, as getting stamps from local shops, which was the real purpose.
I say this as it exhibits the level of local feeling that still exists. This led to the largest wet-signature petition in the 21st century, with 7,100 signatures presented to Mr Speaker in the other place by Alicia Kearns, the MP for Rutland and Stamford. I am grateful for the reassurance from the Minister that there are existing legislative powers, by which I believe she means Section 15 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which will be utilised to ensure the continuation of the ceremonial status. However, reading the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 7 and 10, which would be used to issue a dissolution order for Rutland County Council under this Bill, can the Minister guarantee to the people of Rutland that there will be no gap between such a dissolution of Rutland as a local government entity and its recreation as a lord-lieutenancy under Section 15?
From my reading of this Bill and that statute, it is eminently possible that we will end up with two sets of statutory instruments: one dealing with dissolution orders and then a later one under Section 15 dealing with the incidental provisions such as recreating Rutland. There could then be a gap between these two sets where there will be no lord-lieutenant for Rutland. If there is such a gap and therefore for that time no lord-lieutenant because of Rutland’s unique circumstances, which the Government have admitted, who would perform the functions of the lord-lieutenant? What if in the gap there was a potential royal visit to Rutland or the gap covered a time where there was consultation for honours such as OBEs? What if the gap is when there might be recommendations for royal garden party tickets or the personal delivery function of 100th birthday cards from the King?
Surely it is much better for His Majesty’s Government to play it safe and accept this amendment, which guarantees that there would be no gap. The amendment merely adds Rutland to the list of lord-lieutenancies in the 1997 Act so that whatever happens to Rutland County Council would have no effect on the lord-lieutenancy because it would be secured by this amendment. The amendment is a simpler, cheaper, quicker solution.
Rutland’s motto means much in little. There is much concern for the county’s ceremonial status and, sadly, if there is a gap in the lord-lieutenancy, as I have outlined, rather than the guarantee in Amendment 317, I fear that many—possibly thousands—of Rutlanders, who, as I say, would go to the lengths of issuing passports, might take it upon themselves to write to the King to check that they are not missing out on those lord-lieutenancy functions. I hope that even at this late hour, and late in this Bill, His Majesty’s Government might bring at Third Reading an acceptance of this amendment and give the people of Rutland the guarantee of their lord-lieutenancy.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for pointing out the possibility of the gap. I have to confess that I had not fully understood that there was likely to be a gap between the two. I have been told that this matter would be satisfactorily resolved by the actions the Government were planning to take, so I hope very much that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest here.
Although this amendment relates to Rutland and its status as a ceremonial county—and there is a specific set of circumstances around Rutland—there may be other ceremonial issues in other places which require action to be taken to ensure there is continuity. Does the Minister agree that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that there should be no gap in status, has to be addressed at one and the same time?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this is an important issue on which we have tried to come to a solution. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for bringing forward this amendment and explaining the issue so well. It speaks to the wider issue of ensuring that local identities rooted in geography and history, as we have heard, are protected amid local government reorganisation. The people of Rutland know and care deeply about this.
As I have said before, authorities are not just interchangeable abstract units on a map to be neatened out or tidied up for the convenience of any Government; they are places that people call home, with traditions developed organically over time and with all the inevitable quirks and differences that brings. They are not something to be glossed over but must be enshrined at the heart of any Government’s approach to local government and its reorganisation. That is true community empowerment, by recognising exactly what it is that constitutes community. I am really grateful to my noble friend for highlighting this issue with the current legislation. I hope that the Government will give this serious consideration and that the Minister can tonight make it very clear that there will be no time when the county of Rutland will be without its ceremonial county status and its lord-lieutenant.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her amendment. One of the reasons I love local government is the variety of unique and special issues that we come across all the time, and this is one great example of that. I acknowledge Rutland’s unique circumstances, given that its ceremonial status derives from its 1997 unitarisation rather than from direct reference in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. However, there is no need for this amendment as Rutland’s current ceremonial status is not under threat and remains as it has been for the last 29 years. No change is needed to preserve Rutland’s lord-lieutenancy or ceremonial status as it stands.
This amendment is also not the solution with regard to preserving ceremonial status through the ongoing local government reorganisation programme, and I am happy to repeat the assurances already given on this matter. There are existing legislative powers, including those provided under sections of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, that can be used to ensure the continuity of Rutland’s ceremonial status if necessary. The Secretary of State will consider using these powers following any decision he takes on proposals for local government reorganisation that affect Rutland, which are currently out for consultation.
I can reassure noble Lords that these provisions have previously been used successfully when there has been a change to a county during reorganisation, for example in Cumbria, to define the areas covered by a lord-lieutenancy. Should similar provision be needed for Rutland following any decision to reorganise local government in the area, its ceremonial position would be secured through secondary legislation. I can further reassure the noble Baroness that the Government intend the continuity of ceremonial arrangements and will ensure that Rutland retains its existing lord-lieutenant throughout the local government reorganisation process. With this explanation in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance of continuity. I would have been grateful for clarity that there cannot be the possibility of two sets of statutory instruments, because that is where the possibility of a gap exists, but I am grateful for those reassurances. I hope that that is the situation for the people of Rutland, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and (b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each body specified in Part 1 of this Act and such other bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(b) publish an invitation for other interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, Governments since 2008 have been committed to undertaking post-legislative scrutiny of Acts three to five years after enactment. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, reminded the Committee that she was a member of the Government who accepted the recommendation for such scrutiny to be the norm and she reiterated the Government’s commitment to it. She noted her role in promoting the case for such scrutiny to Parliaments elsewhere.
Not only is there a government commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, but some departments have gone above and beyond by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of a Bill. During the passage of the Football Governance Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, took the initiative in bringing forward a detailed amendment to provide for a review of the Act within five years of its enactment. On the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, introduced an amendment providing for a review within three to seven years. The Minister said that she had listened carefully to the concerns of noble Lords and that her amendment would
“ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations”.—[Official Report, 3/3/26; col. 1202.]
Both departments—DCMS and health—are to be commended for their commitment and for their willingness to engage on the issue. They recognise the value of post-legislative review.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, one of the advantages of having volunteered to stay beyond the Whip issued to these Benches tonight—and it is 12.50 am—is that it gives me the opportunity briefly to comment on Amendment 318B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is great merit in the idea that post-legislative review should be conducted. It is a principle that applies not solely to the Bill under consideration tonight but more generally.
If I can draw this brief comparison—I have no intention of speaking for more than 60 seconds—we encourage the committees of this House to look at issues that they have previously dealt with, with a view to following up to see what has happened. I have been a member of a committee that looked at a particular issue that it had considered five years previously and, incidentally, came to the conclusion that things were no better.
In principle, the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord has some merit. I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in response but, having spent the entire day here until now in great part listening to the debates on this Bill, I am pleased to have the opportunity to invite my noble friend the Minister to say whether or not the Government accept the amendment, and I hope that the principles behind it will be taken very seriously.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is an important contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for proposing it. I support it, but I think the Government will want to do things more quickly than five years. What is being proposed is a review of the impact of the whole Bill over a five-year period, which means you are, in effect, starting after three years to do the research work required. That work may or may not be done by the Government; it might actually be done by university research departments or somebody else. I believe there are a number of errors in the Bill that the Government may find do not work well when we get the Act. Therefore, the Government will need room to effect change more quickly than five years on a number of aspects of the Bill. With that comment, these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 318B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, is a modest and sensible proposal but one of constitutional importance. The amendment would simply require that, within five years of the Act coming into force, the Secretary of State conduct a review of its operations and impacts, publishing the findings and laying them before Parliament.
As we have discussed throughout this Bill, devolution is an evolving process. It is only right that legislation of this significance is subject to proper reflection and reassessment. Without such provision we risk locking in arrangements that may not work as intended. It would not weaken the Act; it would strengthen it by ensuring that it can be reviewed, understood and, if necessary, improved.
This is a sensible amendment. We are grateful to our noble friend for bringing it forward. I urge the Government to take the request from my noble friend seriously.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for Amendment 318B and I welcome the spirit in which it has been tabled. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are already required in law to publish an annual report on English devolution and to lay it before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament already has an annual report against which it can hold the Government to account for delivering on the objectives set out in the English devolution White Paper and this Bill. We have also committed to evaluating the outcomes of devolution as more evidence becomes available. For example, the Government will evaluate the impact of integrated settlements, and this will include various activities to understand whether they are achieving their aims, including an evaluation of integrated settlements as a funding model.
The amendment as set out would be overly burdensome and somewhat duplicative, as it would require the Secretary of State to publish an additional report on the progress of English devolution within five years, despite already being committed in law to publishing annual reports. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, good law is a public good. It is essential that Acts deliver what they are expected to deliver, and not all do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was touching upon. They may be misinterpreted or misunderstood, simply have no effect or have unintended consequences. That is why post-legislative review is essential, and why I stress “review” rather than reports. Putting provision for review in a major measure such as this is a means of ensuring that it is checked to ensure that it is having the intended effect.
I therefore regret that the Minister has not followed her colleagues in recognising the value of doing that by putting provision for it in the Bill. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister reiterated the commitment to at least report, which involves some element of review, although it is not really an overall assessment of the effect, nor does it subject the Act to independent scrutiny to see whether it is delivering in the way that Parliament has actually intended. It is important that we monitor to ensure that the department delivers on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thurlow
“2A In this schedule, “business tenancy” and “business tenancy with a rent review” refer only to a business that is a small or medium-sized enterprise, as defined by the section 123 of the Procurement Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the removal of upward only rent reviews will apply only to SMEs, so as to mitigate any potential loss in value for larger commercial properties and to protect investors and lenders against loss in value as a direct result of this Bill.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions on Amendment 318C and particularly for the kind and generous comments from across the House to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me. I regret too that the surveying and property expertise is becoming depleted by the forthcoming cull and would simply like to remind the Minister that it is not too late to do something about it.
Turning to Amendment 318C, I seriously urge the Minister to reflect on leaving Clause 5 unchanged. It will cause great self-harm and frighten off inward investment and be bad for growth. There would be wisdom in seeking recommendations from the property profession as to how better to exercise this objective of upwards-only rent reviews. Meanwhile, I shall not move my amendment.
(a) at that time it is a business tenancy with a rent review,(b) the tenancy was—(i) granted, or(ii) varied so that it is subject to rent review terms,after this Schedule came into force, and(c) that grant or variation was not made under protected pre-commencement arrangements.(2) For that purpose “protected pre-commencement arrangements” means arrangements that were entered into before this Schedule came into force.(3) But arrangements under which the tenancy was granted are not protected pre-commencement arrangements if—(a) the tenancy is a new tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 7B, (b) the arrangements are a tenancy renewal arrangement within the meaning of Schedule 7B, and(c) the tenancy renewal arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026,(and see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7B for the meaning of “new tenancy” and “tenancy renewal arrangement”).”Member's explanatory statement
This would restructure paragraph 3 and make these changes: use “subject to” rent review terms (for consistency with paragraph 2(1)(b)); use “arrangements” (to catch any kind of arrangements, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract, eg. an option); and ensure that a tenancy is caught if granted by virtue of a pre-commencement tenancy renewal arrangement that is itself caught by Schedule 7B.
(a) at that time it is a business tenancy with a rent review,(b) at that time the rent review terms—(i) do not specify new passing rent, and(ii) include elements 1 and 2,(c) the tenancy was—(i) granted, or(ii) varied so that it is subject to rent review terms that do not specify the new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,after this Schedule came into force, and(d) that grant or variation was not made under protected pre-commencement arrangements.(2) For that purpose “protected pre-commencement arrangements” means arrangements that were entered into before this Schedule came into force.(3) But arrangements under which the tenancy was granted are not protected pre-commencement arrangements if—(a) the tenancy is a new tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 7B,(b) the arrangements are a tenancy renewal arrangement within the meaning of Schedule 7B, and(c) the tenancy renewal arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026,(and see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7B for the meaning of “new tenancy” and “tenancy renewal arrangement”).”Member's explanatory statement
This would restructure paragraph 6 and make these changes: use “subject to” rent review terms (for consistency with paragraph 2(1)(b)); use “arrangements” (to catch any kind of arrangements, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract, eg. an option); and ensure that a tenancy is caught if granted by virtue of a pre-commencement tenancy renewal arrangement that is itself caught by Schedule 7B.
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that the language of paragraph 11(2)(a)(ii) is consistent with paragraph 2(1)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that the language of paragraph 11(2)(b)(ii) is consistent with paragraph 2(1)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that any pre-commencement arrangements for the grant or variation of a tenancy would be caught by this provision, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract (eg. an option).
Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for the provisions of Schedule 7B to apply to a “new lease” if it is granted under a tenancy renewal arrangement entered into on or after the day on which this amendment was tabled.
““LGA 2000” means the Local Government Act 2000;”Member's explanatory statement
This would add a definition of “LGA 2000” to the Bill.
““LGPIHA 2007” means the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007;”Member's explanatory statement
This would add a definition of “LGPIHA 2007” to the Bill.
“Certain orders and regulations provided for by Parts 1 and 2(1) Section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) In subsection (2) for“An order to which subsection (2A) applies”substitute“Subject to subsections (2A) and (3), an order under this Part”.(3) In subsection (2A)—(a) for“This subsection applies to an order under this Part other than—”substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply to—”;(b) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) an order under section 107FA,”;(c) in paragraph (b), omit the second “or”;(d) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) an order under section 113E,”.(e) at the end of paragraph (c) insert“, or”(d) an order under Schedule 5BA.” (4) In subsection (3A), after “107K(1)” insert “or Schedule 5AA”(5) In subsection (5), for “(2A)(a) or (b)” substitute “(2A)(za) to (ba) or (2A)(d)”.(6) Section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (9).(7) In subsection (2)—(a) for “(8)(a)” substitute “(8)(aa)”;(b) before “, includes” insert “or (8)(l), or regulations under Schedule 1A”.(8) In subsection (5)(a)—(a) after “subsection” insert “(8)(ac) or”;(b) after “(c)” insert “or (8)(l)”.(9) In subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—“(ac) under section 33A;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that new powers added to LDEDCA 2009 or LURA 2023 by the Bill are subject to the intended level of Parliamentary scrutiny and do not include the power to amend any enactment.
“(1A) But none of the following provisions comes into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c)—(a) section (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) (and Schedules (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) and (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees)) (mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees);(b) section 25 (and Schedule 7) (charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways);(c) Chapter 3 of Part 3 (licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles);”Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for a single subsection setting out which powers are excluded from royal assent commencement under clause 92(1)(c). In the new subsection, paragraphs (b) and (c) replicate the current effect of clause 92(2) and (3); and paragraph (a) relates to the new section and Schedules that would be inserted after clause 10 and Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name.
“(za1) section (Limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation) (limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation);”Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for commencement two months after Royal Assent for the new clause which would limit the power to delay elections in connection with local government reorganisation.