House of Commons
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Wednesday 22 April.
City of London (Markets) Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoter of the City of London (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session on 22 January 2025, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current Session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Wednesday 22 April.
Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoter of the Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords on 23 January 2023 in the 2022-23 session, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to remind Members of the continuing need to follow the conventions and courtesies of the House as we approach the local elections. Members must inform colleagues in advance if they plan to table questions that specifically affect a colleague’s constituency, or if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency, except for private purposes. I also stress that the Deputy Speakers have no opportunities to raise issues relating to these conventions, or wider issues from their constituency, in the Chamber, so I urge colleagues to be particularly mindful of any activity in their constituencies that might be deemed discourteous—and I do not think it would help the Member’s career in this Chamber, either. All colleagues across the House should take care and treat each other with respect.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Tackling child poverty is fundamental to the work of this Labour Government. In December, we published our ambitious and comprehensive UK-wide child poverty strategy. It sets out the steps we are taking to reduce child poverty in the short term, as well as putting in place the building blocks we need to create long-term change across the United Kingdom. On its own, our decision to lift the two-child cap, which came into effect just last week, will benefit 95,000 children in Scotland.
Pamela Nash
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish National party has failed Scotland’s children over the past two decades, leaving thousands in poverty, including one in four in my constituency, and that it is only Labour that will prioritise our children, as we have shown by lifting the two-child cap, which is now benefiting over 13,000 children in Lanarkshire?
Mr Alexander
First, on the conduct of the Government: the Conservatives in government pushed kids into poverty; Labour in government lifts kids out of poverty. We would have hoped for a better approach from the Scottish Government, but the fact is that there are 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own. At the same time, the challenge that was set by the previous First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was to close the educational attainment gap in Scotland—of course, education, along with employment, is the best route out of poverty—but that gap has got wider rather than narrower. What a damning indictment of the Scottish Government.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Obviously I do not agree with the Secretary of State’s analysis, but I think we can agree that child poverty and the other challenges that face real people in Scotland should be the focus of this Scottish Parliament election campaign, and not independence, for which, incredibly, the Reform UK candidate in Dumfriesshire voted. Does the Secretary of State agree that anybody in Scotland who does not want to see Scotland spend five more years in a constitutional cul-de-sac should use their vote wisely to stop an SNP majority?
Mr Alexander
It is always important for the electorate to use their votes wisely, but the fact is that there are two parties that are deeply threatened by Scottish Labour’s emergence as the credible alternative to the SNP. They are, on the one hand, the Scottish National party and, on the other hand, Reform. If we think about it, their interests are completely aligned, in talking Reform up and talking Scottish Labour down. I certainly hope that people act wisely and make sure that this Scottish election is about Scotland.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Through our ambitious Pride in Place programme, we are empowering local people to shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Pride in Place impact fund is investing £12 million across Scotland over two years, including £1.5 million in North Ayrshire. We will invest up to £480 million in 24 Scottish communities over the next decade, including £20 million each for the Irvine and Three Towns neighbourhoods in North Ayrshire, and for the Fauldhouse, Whitburn and Blackburn neighbourhood in West Lothian. This locally led funding can be used to directly support regeneration, high streets and heritage. Best of all, decisions will be made by local people—those who know and love the places the most.
Irene Campbell
I am pleased to say that after a huge amount of hard work was put into a Pride in Place application, investment has been successfully allocated to the three towns of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the £20 million of UK Government Pride in Place funding will provide great opportunities for community projects that can improve our town centres and regenerate our shorefront areas?
Kirsty McNeill
Huge congratulations to my hon. Friend and her constituents. These three towns have tremendous untapped potential that has been long neglected and underutilised. Our coastal towns are a huge part of our identity on these islands, and I look forward to working with her to champion the pride that people rightly feel about living in this beautiful part of Ayrshire.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Years of under-investment and the loss of major employers have left Whitburn and Blackburn facing deep economic and health inequalities, weakened high streets and people generally feeling left behind, yet the strength of local organisations and businesses shows great ambition for renewal. With £20 million of Pride in Place funding from this Labour Government, local people are finally at the heart of decisions on local regeneration. How does the Minister see this programme rebuilding community cohesion and inclusion so that people feel valued and that their contribution matters?
Kirsty McNeill
The communities of Fauldhouse, Blackburn and Whitburn all face long-standing economic challenges, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is also so much pride and passion locally, and she is a great champion of that. Our Pride in Place programme is there to ensure that all local people have a stake and a say, and that they can work together for a future that is truly worthy of their ambitions for the places they love.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Minister share my disappointment that my constituency of Edinburgh West was the only one in Edinburgh that was not considered for a Pride in Place programme, including areas like Drylaw and Stenhouse which have particular problems that could have been helped by this programme?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Member and I have had a chance to discuss this matter previously and, as I have indicated, these are Labour priorities guided by Labour values. We have committed to targeting funding at the places that need it most, based on a double deprivation index, and I am afraid her constituency simply did not qualify.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister accept that if Pride in Place in Scotland is to mean anything, as with elsewhere in the UK, it must include targeted funding for high streets and town centres to bring long-term vacant premises back into productive use?
Kirsty McNeill
That is precisely one of the focuses of the Pride in Place programme. Our high streets have been neglected for far too long and are at the real heart of community pride. I am delighted that so many of the Pride in Place bids are focused on exactly that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government stand ready to provide the support needed by families in response to recent events in the middle east. The Prime Minister has set out our plan to deal with the immediate impact of the conflict on the cost of living, which includes cutting energy bills by an average of £117 per household, extending the fuel duty cut until September while closely monitoring prices at the pumps, providing £4.6 million for low-income families in Scotland who heat their homes with oil to tackle surging prices and, of course, continuing to push for de-escalation of the conflict itself.
Wendy Chamberlain
I welcome what the Minister has said, but the challenge is that the Government have yet to correct the challenges from the ECO4 scheme, which in North East Fife has blighted houses with not only a lack of insulation but poor installation of inappropriate heat pumps and so on. Can the Secretary of State advise me when the Government will start inspecting these properties and consider a compensation scheme for constituents such as mine?
Mr Alexander
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), is on the Front Bench with me. I will write to the hon. Lady on exactly that matter.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My constituents welcomed the fall in energy prices at the beginning of this month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce energy prices in Scotland is not to pursue more constitutional divides but to secure our energy independence by progressing the Government’s clean power mission as quickly as possible?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Global instability, including the recent events in Iran, has exposed the risks of relying on fossil fuel markets that the United Kingdom inevitably does not control. We are delivering on work to ensure our energy independence and thereby bring down bills for the British people for good. What we absolutely do not need right now is the added distraction of political point scoring at the expense of our national security in what is a dangerous and troubled world.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Conservatives are clear that we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the potential of the North sea, cutting bills, saving Scottish jobs and making us more energy secure. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is running the election campaign for the leader of the Scottish Labour party, so he presumably agrees with the leader, who said,
“The balanced approach that we need to take is supporting our oil and gas sector.”
That also presumably means that the Secretary of State disagrees with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Prime Minister. Who is right: the Prime Minister or the leader of the Scottish Labour party? It cannot be both.
Mr Alexander
The difficulty with the point that the Scottish Conservatives are making is that they are in denial of their record. We lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea when the hon. Gentleman was in office. The fact is that the challenge for the North sea did not emerge in July 2024; in fact, it reflects the complete absence of a plan from the previous Government. The reality is that oil and gas will be central part of our energy mix for many years to come, and this Government recognise and understand that.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Scotland is an energy-rich exporter of electricity, hydrocarbons and renewables, so why are so many Scots struggling to pay what are among the highest bills in Europe?
Mr Alexander
Economic illiteracy is not limited to the Benches of the House of Commons; it extends to the First Minister. Let us take the example of Berwick Bank, the largest offshore wind farm in Europe, which was paid for in no small measure thanks to the actions of a UK Government. The fact is that when the First Minister and the hon. Gentleman make their claim that the affordability of renewables is somehow determined by the Scottish taxpayer, they ignore the contribution paid by UK bill payers. The level of investment in renewables in Scotland is a direct consequence of its being part of the UK energy market.
Stephen Gethins
Right there, we see the alignment of Labour and Reform. Labour’s Brexit isolationism has taken us away from Europe and away from our key markets. Independent Ireland—European Ireland—has announced a €700 million support package, yet Scotland, which has given £350 billion to the Treasury, got £35 per household in heating oil support. As the fuel crisis spirals, we see little or no action from the Labour Government. Will they turn their back on that alignment and turn towards the taxpayer?
Mr Alexander
There goes the SNP talking up Reform again. When will SNP Members learn that it is possible to be anti-nationalist without being anti-Scottish? That party promised a publicly owned energy company almost a decade ago. Maybe when the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, he can tell us where that energy company went.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Tragically, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in Scotland. I want Scots to benefit from the very best research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research works in partnership with the Scottish Government to support and enhance health and social care research across the UK, even though healthcare is devolved. Researchers in Scotland can now apply for funding, which has, for example, allowed the outstanding researchers at the University of Dundee to identify a newer, simpler type of mammogram that can reliably show how breast cancer responds to chemotherapy before surgery.
Clive Jones
Cancer Research UK’s manifesto for cancer research and care in Scotland recommends that the Government should increase
“strategic institutional research and innovation funding…investing in and supporting the delivery of a new Scottish Health and Biomedicine Institute (SHBI) to deliver new innovations that will benefit people and the economy in Scotland.”
What is the Minister doing to support that manifesto?
Kirsty McNeill
I commend my hon. Friend for his ongoing and dogged advocacy for this cause. As he will know, the UK Government are committed to ensuring a partnership approach between the health services of Scotland and the rest of the UK, and we are focused on ensuring that higher education, and other forms of innovation, are part of our work on cancer.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s industrial strategy set out how we will grow our economy by doubling down on our national strengths, despite the global uncertainty we are living through. That includes investing in Scotland’s huge contribution to the UK economy. Our free trade agreements with India and the EU will have huge benefits for Scottish businesses, and of course Scotland will benefit hugely from the defence dividend created by our increased investment in our national security. This is a Government backing growth and jobs in Scotland.
Euan Stainbank
Given the state of our economy, taxpayer money must be used far more strategically. Phase 3 of the SNP’s Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund granted the majority of a taxpayer-funded subsidy to Chinese bus manufacturers, which directly contributed six days later to 115 jobs being put at risk in Falkirk. With demand for ZEBs rising but domestic market share reducing, Scottish manufacturing jobs are being lost with the assistance of taxpayer money, and something must change. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that future taxpayer-funded orders are met by manufacturers and workers in Scotland and across the UK?
Mr Alexander
This is an incredibly difficult time for the Alexander Dennis workers and their families, many of whom face an uncertain future through no fault of their own. It is, alas, yet another example of failure on the part of the Scottish Government, who sent the majority of a £45 million funding pot for zero emission buses to China, blocking comparative bids to build and invest in Falkirk. While Labour mayors have shown what is possible across the rest of the UK, stepping forward with bus orders and backing British manufacturing when it mattered, that is an example not so much of being “stronger for Scotland”, as of being stronger for China.
John Grady
Good transport is essential for economic growth, be it ferries to our wonderful islands, or their links from the west coast of Scotland to our airport, but after almost 20 years of the SNP, Glasgow is in gridlock. Workers worry about getting to work on time, which holds back business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Glasgow needs change, and that only Anas Sarwar can get Glasgow moving?
Mr Alexander
Unsurprisingly, I find myself wholeheartedly in agreement with my hon. Friend. Glasgow is the city of my birth, and it has been badly neglected on any objective measure by the Scottish Government in recent years. Scottish local authorities have been starved of cash over decades by the SNP-led Scottish Government, who have hoarded powers and resources at the centre in Edinburgh, to the detriment of Scotland’s local authorities and cities. People make Glasgow, and Glasgow and its people deserve a whole lot better.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
A strong job and business market is key for economic growth, but Labour’s huge rise in national insurance is a direct jobs tax, and the SNP’s huge increase in business rates is a direct tax on our businesses. Scottish Conservatives have a plan to revitalise our high streets, support jobs and get businesses investing. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government’s decisions since coming to power have cost jobs, businesses and investment in Scotland?
Mr Alexander
Before we get to the Conservatives’ plan, perhaps we could start with their apology. What about the £22 billion black hole that was left in the public finances by the Conservatives? We are still waiting for the apology.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
In a Westminster Hall debate on heating oil support this morning, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) suggested that the Scottish Government should be supporting businesses with energy costs. I agree that powers over energy should be totally devolved to the Scottish Government—does the Secretary of State agree with that?
Mr Alexander
If SNP Members want guidance on how to deal with energy costs, they could look at the £100 million emergency package that was announced by Scottish Labour only a few days ago. I must express concern, however, because if they are serious about energy, perhaps they could tell the House what happened to the publicly owned energy company that was promised so long ago by Nicola Sturgeon, because the Scottish public are still waiting.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In a long litany of failures, surely the most egregious of all that the Scottish National party has inflicted on Scotland is the lack of any discernible growth whatsoever. Indeed, had Scotland’s economy grown at the same rate as the rest of the UK’s from 2010, Scotland could be up to £10 billion a year richer. At the same time, its benefits bill is set to soar to £9 billion by 2030. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that Scotland needs change?
Mr Alexander
I certainly agree that Scotland needs change. There has been an industrial level of waste by the Scottish Government in relation to money. Half a billion pounds has been spent on ferries; the First Minister went to Stornoway last week, but this week the boat that he travelled on broke down. A third of the CalMac fleet was out of commission over Easter. Whether it is the Scottish Government’s waste of resources, their failure on public services or their abject failure on economic growth, Scotland needs and deserves change.
Andrew Bowie
I could not agree more, but change will not come from a weak and feeble Labour party that over the last five years has nodded through and supported every single one of the SNP’s mad-cap schemes, including, though Labour Members will not admit it now, the dangerous gender recognition reforms stopped by us. The SNP has failed Scotland and Scotland now has the worst of both worlds: two economically illiterate socialist Governments engaged in a staggeringly depressing game of Top Trumps in a desperate race to the bottom. National insurance, the family farm tax, the North sea, business rates—Labour and the SNP are strangling economic growth in Scotland.
Mr Alexander
The last time I checked, it was actually Scottish Conservative votes in Holyrood that sustained Alex Salmond’s Government in power, so we are not going to take any lectures from the Conservatives about somehow being the SNP’s little helpers. The reality is that Reform is the SNP’s little helper in this election, and after the comments made last night, it is pretty clear that the SNP is Reform’s little helper too.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The SNP is willing to support the Chinese economy by buying buses from China that raise serious security concerns, but when it comes to supporting defence jobs at the British-owned Rolls-Royce site in Glasgow, it pulled the funding. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP is failing Scotland both on jobs and on security?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady’s question tells us everything we need to know about the base politics of the SNP, which suggest that those who are pro national security are somehow anti-Scottish. That helps to explain why the SNP Government were not willing to fund the welding centre on the Clyde, which would have delivered hundreds of apprenticeships and secure jobs for decades to come. It explains why they were are weak on our own defence, supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament notwithstanding the arrival of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions on the international stage. If Scotland wants to benefit from being part of a strong and secure United Kingdom, I hope that we will decisively reject the SNP on 7 May.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Last month, alongside the Chancellor, I met oil and gas industry leaders to discuss the impact of geopolitical volatility on energy prices. The Chancellor reaffirmed her commitment to backing Britain’s oil and gas industry, recognising its pivotal role in supporting growth and jobs, especially in Scotland. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants the energy profits levy to come to an end, but the crisis in the middle east has had real-time consequences on oil and gas prices, as we can all see, and it is right that we respond to that robustly.
Rebecca Paul
The oil and gas sector is a vital industry, not just in Scotland but for the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State share the disappointment of the Conservatives that the Chancellor deterred a reported £17.5 billion of private investment into the oil and gas sector by choosing to retain the energy profits levy last month? That money would have supported thousands of Scottish jobs, and delivered growth and energy security for the UK.
Mr Alexander
I respectfully point out that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the EPL. Why did they do so? They did it in order to deal with excess profits generated by a geopolitical crisis. The conflict in the middle east that we are living through at the moment makes the case for dealing with excess profits from some of the largest energy companies in the world.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran in my constituency has now ceased production, after the company said last year that it had not made a profit for five years. News that our UK Labour Government have made £9 million available to support the affected workforce and find a future for the site has been warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially in Cowdenbeath. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the interests of the people of Fife for the Scottish and UK Governments to work together to utilise all available funding and find a viable future that brings jobs back to the site?
Mr Alexander
May I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless efforts on behalf of her constituents in relation to the challenge faced by the Mossmorran workforce? She has been a powerful and consistent advocate for the workforce and for the changes that we needed to see. That is why I am proud that the UK Government have been actively marketing the site to potential investors and stand ready, as she says, to invest up to £9 million to secure a successful future for the site and support the local economy.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that we did not get to John Lamont’s question. He is 50 today, and I believe that his parents are watching him!
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The Southport inquiry report is truly harrowing, and I cannot imagine the pain that it will cause the families of all those affected. We will make the changes needed to honour the victims, the injured and the families, and our thoughts remain with the loved ones of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, and with all those impacted.
Today marks 37 years since the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 men, women and children went to a football match and never returned. My promise remains that, working with families, we will deliver a Hillsborough law to end the injustice that they have suffered and ensure that the state will always act for the people it serves.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lauren Edwards
The Prime Minister was right to resist us being drawn into an ill-conceived war in the middle east with apparently no clear plan for how it may end. Despite the welcome cost of living support that he referenced in his statement on Monday, we are all rightly angry that our constituents will feel the impact of this war in their pockets and in their daily lives. Will he outline what steps he is taking both to support our armed forces and plan for all future contingencies? We all hope for a swift resolution and progress at the summit later this week, but we must be prepared for all potential scenarios.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, the Royal Engineers in her constituency, and all those serving our country at home and abroad. We are proud to be investing a record £9 billion to deliver the quality homes that they deserve. We are turning around Army recruitment after the Conservatives missed targets for 14 years, but the foremost responsibility to our armed forces is in the decisions we take on military actions. My principles are clear. That is a sharp contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to jump into the war with both feet without thinking through the consequences.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that I respect Lord Robertson, and I thank him again for carrying out the strategic review. My responsibility is to keep the British people safe, and that is a duty I take seriously. That is why I do not agree with his comments.
Last February—seven months after taking office—I took the decision to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%, which was paid for by a difficult decision on overseas aid. Last June at the NATO summit, I committed to raising core defence spending to 3.5%. Last November, the Budget committed record funding to defence. I reaffirm those commitments now.
The strategic defence review is a 10-year blueprint for national security. The defence investment plan will put that into effect, and it will be published as soon as possible. We need to get it right. We inherited plans that were uncosted and undeliverable, and we are not going to repeat those mistakes.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said:
“We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.”
He said—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it looks good to shout somebody down at the Dispatch Box.
Mrs Badenoch
Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?
The Prime Minister
I remind the House that we have put in place the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. Let me spell that out: that means we are spending £270 billion over this Parliament. That is £5 billion more this year, with defence funding increasing every year. These are record amounts—decisions of a Labour Prime Minister, a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government.
What a contrast: when the Conservatives came into office, defence spending was 2.5%; when they left, it was 2.3%. When they came into office, the Army numbered 100,000; when they left, it was 72,000. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that our defence is the “weakest in 400 years.” That is what they left behind.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?
The Prime Minister
I have set out my position. The defence investment plan is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets for 18 years. The Leader of the Opposition talks about talking; if you are going to support your country and make it safe, you have to make the right calls on the big issues. She called for us to jump into the war. The Conservatives can pretend otherwise, but I remember walking into this Chamber, standing at the Dispatch Box for the first time on the matter and saying that we would not get drawn into the war and would not join the offensive, and they all shouted, “Shame!” They remember it. I remember it. They are just embarrassed by it now.
A week later, when the Leader of the Opposition realised that she had made a massive error of judgment, she attempted the mother of all U-turns. That did not work, so this weekend, she said that when she said we should jump into the war, she was talking about “verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, it is Prime Minister’s questions. We have got to concentrate. I call Kemi Badenoch.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition was clear in what she was saying. She said we should give “verbal support”; I suppose that is standing on the sidelines and saying, “Get in there. Good luck, mate. You’ve got this.” That is her approach. We are reforming welfare and spending more on defence; the Conservatives did neither. The welfare bill rose by £88 billion on their watch. It soared by £33 billion on the shadow Chancellor’s watch. We are fixing it—what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. They voted to keep the broken system. Taking advice from the Conservative party on reforming welfare and defence spending is like asking Liz Truss how to keep your mortgage down.
Mrs Badenoch
This is so poor from the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [Interruption.] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker.
Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?
The Prime Minister
We are spending more on defence—record amounts—with £270 billion in this Parliament, and £5 billion extra. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Chancellor. It is because of the decisions of this Chancellor that we have the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war. We have also got the biggest pay rise for our armed forces for over 20 years. We have also got the biggest investment in military housing for more than half a century. What did the Conservatives do at the Budget? They voted against all of that.
Mrs Badenoch
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?
The Prime Minister
HMS Dragon was commissioned by a Labour Government, as it happens. The Leader of the Opposition stands there and says, “Please forget the fact that we hollowed out the armed forces. Please clear up our mess.” I went to the Gulf last week and thanked our armed forces for protecting British lives. She said that we should have jumped into the war, without thinking about the consequences, and then said the next week, “Oh no, we shouldn’t be in the war.” [Interruption.] Now she says, “What I meant was that we should give verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to be quiet. It is the same people: if this carries on, I suspect that next week you will not be at Prime Minister’s questions.
The Prime Minister
In addition to the Leader of the Opposition saying that her position is that we should just say to the Americans, “Get in there”, she insulted our armed forces, saying that they were just “hanging around”. These are pilots who within two hours of this conflict starting were up, risking their lives, taking missiles out of the sky. She insulted them and she has never apologised for that. She said a few weeks ago:
“Serious times call for serious people.”
She is not one of them.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that—as my hon. Friend has just said—he himself was at Hillsborough, and I thank him for his decades of campaigning for justice. I am personally committed to working with the families to get this Bill right. It is integral that their views are heard. We are discussing this precise issue with them, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is fully updated. I reaffirm my commitment to delivering the legislation, and to ensuring that the duty of candour applies to all public servants.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words about the Southport inquiry, and also about the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy. Our thoughts are with all the families affected and with the survivors, and I hope that the Prime Minister will deliver on the Hillsborough law. Today also marks the third anniversary of the start of the devastating civil war in Sudan, and I hope that the Prime Minister will recommit himself to real action in the face of the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe.
In a phone call with Sky News last night, President Trump threatened to rip up his trade deal with the UK as a punishment for our not joining his idiotic war in Iran. This must be the last straw. Surely the Prime Minister cannot send our King to meet a man who treats our country like a Mafia boss running a protection racket.
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about Sudan. We often overlook the fact that that is the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the world at the moment.
My position on the Iran war has been clear from the start. We are not going to get dragged into this war. It is not our war. A lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course, and that pressure includes what happened last night. I am not going to change my mind. I am not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so. I know where I stand.
The purpose of the King’s visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of relations with and the independence of the United States. The monarchy is an important reminder of the long-standing bonds and the enduring relationship between our two countries, which are far greater than anyone who occupies any particular office at any particular time.
Ed Davey
President Trump is one of the most unpredictable people we have seen on the world stage, and I hope that he does not embarrass our monarch.
Moving on, last year the Prime Minister claimed that he had done some special deal so that Brits would be able to “sail through” e-gates at EU airports, but that was not the experience of families returning from holiday this week. Long queues at borders and passport controls are the latest symbol of the Brexit disaster, but they are also a symbol of this Government’s failure to repair that damage. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading British travellers, and can he tell them when they will be able to “sail through” passport control?
The Prime Minister
I have made it very clear that I think our national interest lies in close relations with the EU on defence, security, energy and the economy. I was very pleased that at last year’s summit we did negotiate an agreement on e-gates, and we are pushing hard on that. We have another summit this year, where I intend not just to make good on what we have already agreed, but to go closer to the EU in the relations that we have.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated campaigning on this important issue. I have met Michael Thomas and heard his experiences, and I share her concern about young, predominantly working-class people being exploited. I do want to make progress as quickly as possible: I have asked the Chief Secretary to meet the V11 group to discuss what further steps the Government can take to support those affected, and I will ensure that that is reported back to my hon. Friend so that she is fully updated on what is going on.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Two years ago, people voted for change, but what have they got? More of the same. But it is not they who have let down their end of the bargain. My constituents are working themselves to the bone, and let us be absolutely clear: they are working and still having to claim benefits. Whether it is farmers, care workers or students—you name it—there is not a single section of society that has not been let down, and I do not want that to be the case. We need to show that this House works for them, because actors will step into that space—people who would love nothing more than for our democracy to be toppled because we cannot show our people a better way of life. We used to say to people, “If you work hard, you’ll get on in life.” That has not been the case for years. Will this Government change economic and fiscal course and deliver for people in the worst cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative party being in power. We took the decision at the Budget to cut energy bills across the country. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago to make the announcement about heating oil, which is obviously of huge concern in Northern Ireland. I heard what people had to say, and we have put in place £53 million. The authorities in Northern Ireland will administer that, but we are looking more widely at what we can do.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: violence against our NHS staff is despicable, and we are introducing a new offence to protect emergency workers from harassment. I congratulate and thank all our NHS staff for their hard work. They have delivered 5 million extra appointments in our first year in government.
We are going further. This week, we have announced 36 new and expanded community diagnostic centres across the country, including expanded services in Nuneaton. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all of those in Northern Ireland are concerned about the impact that the war in Iran is having on them. I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago, where I spoke directly to party leaders and we announced what we are doing on heating oil. Obviously, fuel duty is frozen until September and energy bills have been reduced. We have also made it clear that we will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, which was a particular concern raised with me when I was over in Northern Ireland. The most important thing we can do is to de-escalate the conflict and get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why I am co-hosting the summit on Friday in order to make progress on both those fronts.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Having sat with my hon. Friend and the families of those impacted in Southport in his constituency a number of times, I thank him for everything that he did and is continuing to do in response to that awful attack. I agree with him wholeheartedly that Southport cannot be defined by what happened in that awful, tragic incident; he is right to have pride in his community. I am delighted we are investing in reopening the iconic Southport pier. We are investing £5.8 billion through our Pride in Place fund to put power and resources into the hands of nearly 300 communities. Only a Labour Government will deliver that kind of change.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I tell them that they were let down very badly by the last Government for 14 years, and we are clearing up the mess.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on this issue, and I thank her for that. We launched a major programme of reform of the UK’s product safety regulation. This will help tackle unsafe products being sold online, including non-compliant e-bikes and the batteries that power them. We are also giving the police new powers to take unsafe e-bikes off the roads and destroy them without issuing a warning beforehand.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member. We are providing the West of England combined authority with over £750 million to invest in its priorities. That could include improving services and station facilities at Yate, and I know she will make her voice heard in relation to that. I am pleased that construction is already under way at new stations at Charfield and North Filton, and we have upgraded the Filton bank line as well, enabling more frequent, reliable services in the region.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery. He obviously speaks with great authority and experience on our NHS, and he is right to point out that waiting lists are at their lowest for three years, A&E waiting times are the best for four years and ambulance response times are the fastest for five years. That is because of the investment that we put in and the Conservatives opposed. I wonder how much my hon. Friend would have been charged if he had arrived at a Reform hospital under an insurance-based scheme. That would turn the clock back. The NHS is on the road to recovery: do not risk it with Reform.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country.
Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I was robust with the Conservatives about the record they left, but it is also worth noting that when the Liberal Democrats were last in power, they cut defence spending, despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014. I understand his seriousness and where he is coming from, but I hope he has some humility about his record.
The hon. Member is absolutely right, though, that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what we are doing. We will hit 2.5% of GDP on core defence spending in April 2027; 3% in the next Parliament; and 3.5%—the NATO standard—in 2035, but we are not waiting for the DIP to get contracts announced. Only a month ago, I announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo in Yeovil, which will support jobs there—I recognise that sitting behind the hon. Member is the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance)—and across the supply chain. We are improving on a deal that we inherited from the Conservatives. Under that deal, there was insufficient UK content in helicopter exports, there was no security guarantee that autonomy would be based in Yeovil, and Yeovil was not a centre for helicopter exports. This is Labour delivering—and making the Lib Dem hon. Member for Yeovil quite happy in the process.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I genuinely respect my friend the shadow Minister, but seriously, defence was hollowed out in his party’s time in government. Our safety is the primary responsibility of any Government, and more must be spent on our defence. However, that should not come at the expense of pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare. There are always other ways, such as scrapping digital identification, looking at some of our net zero policies, and rethinking some of the fiscal rules. Will the Minister confirm that all future funding options are being seriously considered?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have £5 billion extra in our budget this year, which we are using to address the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces that we inherited. We have used part of that to give our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years. That is helping to address the below-inflation “pay rises”, if we can call them that, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of defence spending. I encourage colleagues to still make that case, because we need to increase defence spending—we are increasing it. I would welcome a national conversation about the threats we face, and how we match those threats with increased capability. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the SDR that we have that debate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?
Luke Pollard
There is a marked change in the approach that this Government are taking to the Ministry of Defence: we want to do more with the Defence Committee, bring it into decision making even more, and give it an understanding of situations, including by providing more secret briefings; they previously might not have been available in the number that we are now providing. I want to continue doing that, so I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I recognise the case for increased defence spending; I am glad he said what he did about it, especially as the Conservatives hollowed out and underfunded our forces for 14 years. I entirely understand that he is having a change of heart about his party’s record in government, and wants to increase that spending. We will continue to increase defence spending, as we have set out.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government’s increased investment in our armed forces and the defence investment plan will offer huge opportunities for the defence sector in Scotland, not least at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by Labour Ministers? That will build on the huge successes of the sector in Scotland, including the £10 billion deal with Norway, which secures 2,000 jobs on the Clyde for the long term.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for the Methil yard. He and I meet often to discuss that, and it is good to see the investment that Navantia is putting into it. In Scotland, we are building the Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and the Type 31 frigates in Rosyth, where I was pleased to be only a few weeks ago for the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active. As a result of work that we have commissioned—the first fleet solid support ship is being built by Navantia, and I was present to see the steel cut in Appledore in North Devon at the end of last year—there is a bright future ahead for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am happy to continue my conversations with my hon. Friend about Methil.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have every sympathy with patriotic Defence Ministers who are being sent out to try to put a brave face on the fact that they are being undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that someone as collegiate, experienced and patriotic as Lord Robertson would never have spoken out as he did if he did not recognise that his party’s Defence team was being undermined in this way? If the threat from Russia is so great that NATO has moved to 3.5% of GDP as its target, why do the Government think that waiting another nine years to achieve it is an appropriate way to deal with the killer in the Kremlin?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right; we have agreed the NATO target of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on national security by 2035. We have agreed that—an important part of it. He will also know what the Defence Secretary revealed last week about covert Russian activities. It is precisely because we can see more threats from Russia and other adversaries, and not just against our undersea cables, that we are increasing defence spending and trying to renew our armed forces. We are dealing with the hollowing out. As a patriotic Back Bencher, he shares many of my views about the last Government’s effect on our armed forces, and their hollowing out under the Conservatives. I am very happy to continue my conversation with him about how we can make the case for further defence investment.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must understand that we inherited an MOD procurement system in disarray, unfunded defence programmes, an Air Force without enough aircraft or helicopters, a Navy without enough ships, and an Army with a low—Napoleonic—number of troops? We face wars in the middle east and Ukraine. We are working with an exceptionally challenging situation, and we must get this right. Please do not allow the Opposition to rewrite history.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to the country. The fact that he has served gives renewed credibility to what he has said. I certainly find it curious that many of the people who delighted in cutting our armed forces over the last 14 years now say, without a hint of humility, that they want to increase defence spending. I would have much more respect for the Conservatives’ argument if they apologised—first, for their cuts to our armed forces, and secondly, for their leader, who described our brave pilots in the middle east as “just hanging around”. I think our forces deserve better than the Conservatives, and they have it with this Labour Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?
Luke Pollard
As a Devon neighbour, I know the hon. Gentleman’s passion for our armed forces, and it is good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie—an institution of which I am also proud to be a graduate. He knows that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. I would much prefer to get it right than to publish a document that is not right, and that is what we will do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country. It is interesting that he mentioned recruitment, because the shadow Minister, who sat on the Government Benches during the last Parliament, was scathing about his own Government’s record on recruitment, scathing about their performance, and scathing about their lack of action against the contractor they brought in. I am pleased to report that under a Labour Government, inflow is up and outflow is down. We have replaced the contractor, and not only are we delivering the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years—a second above-inflation pay rise—but we have ended the privatisation of military homes, and the military homes scandal that we inherited. Nine in 10 military homes are being refitted in the next decade. We are also putting effort into valuing our people by legislating for a new armed forces commissioner, so our forces and their families can raise concerns outside the chain of command with someone independent. This is a Government who are delivering for those who serve in uniform.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing? He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.
Luke Pollard
I really like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a very jovial chap—and he raises some good points. The defence investment plan is needed. It is being worked on by our Department. We will deliver it when it is ready, but we are not waiting for the defence investment plan to make announcements. I have spoken about the £879 million contract I announced this morning in Andover for our Apache and Chinook fleets. I also point to the announcement we made on Friday about a multimillion-pound deal with the veteran-led start-up Cambridge Aerospace to provide new missiles to intercept drones, not just for our forces but for our allies in the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should look to the future; we are doing exactly that. The defence investment plan will set out the kit and capabilities that we need and will buy for the next 10 years, but also the upgrades that we are making to the kit that we have, to give our fighting forces the edge. Importantly, it also talks about how we value our people; for far too long, that has not been spoken about enough in defence. That is something else that we are addressing.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We have heard terrible testimony about the state of military housing, but we have also heard that it is already improving. Does the Minister agree that the £9 billion investment that we are making in military housing to deal with the botched privatisation can only be a good thing, and will raise the morale of our troops?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on the armed forces housing issues that she raises; she is also a thorough champion for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Many of its ships are in her Truro and Falmouth constituency. She is right to talk about the £9 billion commitment that we have made to deliver an improvement in armed forces housing. I see that Opposition Front Benchers are chattering. They had an option to deal with that when in power. They could have dealt with the black mould—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! I am trying to hear, and the noise is not helpful.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Relevant Ministers are happy to discuss with the hon. Member the specific site she mentions in greater depth, and I can reassure her that we are committed to protecting our countryside. Our land use framework balances restoring nature with meeting the demands of homes and energy. We have just announced £60 million—a record amount—to support nature and threatened species.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by congratulating Luton Town on winning at Wembley—having been coached, of course, by Jack Wilshere, a great ex-Arsenal star? I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from a new youth hub, one of the 80 additional hubs that we are launching across the country. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited: over 1,000 youth centres were closed under the Tories and spending on youth services was slashed by 73%. Labour is bringing youth clubs back, and we are proud to do so, building a better future for our young people.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am concerned to hear about those examples. We have put in place support for small businesses and I will ensure that it is available to the hon. Gentleman to pass on to his constituents.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and it is shocking that they have been waiting for over a decade for that practice. I agree with him, but sadly Reform’s leadership in Staffordshire is an absolute mess. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) says “Rubbish.” Reform has had three leaders in three months, one of whom was forced to step down for appalling racist comments, and they are simply not getting on with the job. He is obviously proud of that. All that we can count on from Reform is chaos and division.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I do not know the particular details of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, but I will ensure that they are looked into. We have put record investment into the NHS, but now that he has raised it, I will ensure we look into the specific case he has raised here in this House.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to fund the recommendations of the strategic defence review.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We are in a new era of threat and demands on defence are rising. The strategic defence review sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. The Government have accepted all 62 of the review’s recommendations, and its implementation is being delivered through a whole of UK Government effort. The defence investment plan will deliver on the vision of the strategic defence review and put right a programme that we inherited from the Conservatives that was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we face. It is a 10-year plan and we must get it right.
We are not waiting on the DIP to deliver. We have established the defence cyber and electromagnetic command; launched the Military Intelligence Services and the defence counter-intelligence unit; announced that the UK will purchase 12 new F-35A jets; and launched UK Defence Innovation to streamline our innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget.
This Labour Government have done more. We have reasserted Britain’s place in the world with a rebooted Lancaster House treaty with France, signed the Lunna House treaty with Norway and published the defence diplomacy strategy. We have brought back defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, with 2025 being the highest year of defence exports in 40 years, including landmark deals with Norway and Türkiye. We have published the defence industrial strategy with nearly £800 million to make defence an engine for growth in every corner of the United Kingdom and we have unveiled the groundbreaking Atlantic Bastion programme to make Britain more secure from Russian undersea threats in the north Atlantic. We have also reversed the Tory privatisation that failed our armed forces, with our forces living in appalling accommodation—that is 40,000 forces families—with a £9 billion programme that can upgrade nine in 10 defence houses. This is a Labour Government delivering for Britain and delivering for defence.
Mr Francois
Labour’s strategic defence review had three co-authors. I would like to ask the Minister a question about each of them in turn. Does he agree with Dr Fiona Hill that there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning?
Does he agree with General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the SDR, that there is
“an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”?
Or does he agree with Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and distinguished former NATO Secretary-General, that the Prime Minister has shown a “corrosive complacency” towards defence?
All of those strong words have been spoken in the past 48 hours. This is no coincidence: the authors obviously understand the principles of combined arms manoeuvre. The truth is that Labour’s rhetoric on defence simply does not match the financial reality. We know that in the last financial year the Ministry of Defence was forced to make £2.6 billion of crippling in-year cuts. It has now been reported that in this financial year it will be asked to find a further £3.5 billion on top. That would be catastrophic for our armed forces. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be no in-year savings exercise this year?
Finally, Labour’s SDR, published last June, promised us a comprehensive 10-year defence investment plan, which is still nowhere to be seen. One Labour peer told me prior to Easter that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot, except that Godot finally turned up. Can the Minister now tell the House in what month and what year Labour’s much-vaunted defence investment plan is actually going to be published, or is Labour’s Chancellor, who is adamantly refusing to sign it, still going to hold our armed forces to ransom? Is that not why our Prime Minister, who resolutely refuses to overrule her, is all mouth and no trousers on defence?
Luke Pollard
Deary me, I see the armchair general is out in full force today. Let me personally place on record again my thanks to Richard Barrons, George Robertson and Fiona Hill for the superb work they did in authoring the strategic defence review. They know more than many the mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left our defence in, with hollowed-out and underfunded defences—not my words, but those of a Tory Defence Secretary from this Dispatch Box, admitting the failures they made with our armed forces.
In our first year, Labour has boosted defence spending by over £5 billion. We are now spending more on defence this year than the previous Conservative Government spent in any year. We will hit 2.6% in 2027, 3% in the next Parliament, and 3.5% in 2035. That level of spending was not seen in any of the 14 years that the right hon. Member and his colleagues were in government. In their first five years of government, they cut defence spending by £12 billion and did long-term damage to our military. They cut the number of our warships by 25% and mine-hunting ships by half. They delayed the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. In their 14 years, they never once hit the 2.5% of GDP spending that we left them with when we were last in power. They cut troop numbers to the lowest level since Napoleon, and drove down military morale with low pay and appalling military housing.
We are working flat out to deliver the DIP, and we will publish it when it is ready. We are doing something that was never done under the Tories: we are doing a line-by-line review of defence budgets, publishing not just an equipment plan but a plan covering housing, personnel and infrastructure all in one. This is a Labour Government who are delivering for defence.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The public intervention by Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General is sobering. For a man of his stature to make such an assessment shows the gravity of the situation. Indeed, he was the person tasked by the Government to head up the strategic defence review. His comments align with what the Defence Committee has been highlighting for several months now: we as a nation are ill-prepared to face the threats in this more volatile world. That is why the Government’s rhetoric must align with reality. We must ensure that we get to 3% of GDP spend on defence in this Parliament. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road to the next Parliament.
When the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, he said that the defence investment plan was on his desk and would be delivered very soon. Any further delay to the DIP would cause further damage to our defence industrial base, not to mention send the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries. Will the Minister please confirm when the defence investment plan finally be published?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend does a superb job on the Defence Committee, and he is right to be asking questions of defence. It is precisely because I share many of his views that we commissioned the strategic defence review in the first place. We adopted all 62 recommendations, including the recommendation to move our nation’s military to warfighting readiness, ending the hollowing-out and underfunding that we inherited from the Conservative party. That is why there is £5 billion extra in our defence budget this year already. The shadow Minister’s Government cut defence when they had their first budget, and we increased defence funding—that is the difference between our two parties.
We are not waiting for the defence investment plan. I entirely understand the seriousness with which the Defence Committee Chair raises these issues. We are announcing defence contracts—not a day goes by without me signing off on a new one. Indeed, this morning I was in Andover announcing the £879 million contract for maintenance of our Apache and Chinook helicopters with Boeing. It is a 1,200-job contract that supports our efforts to make defence an engine for growth and give our fighting forces the very best equipment they can have.
Luke Pollard
They could have dealt with the black mould in our armed forces kids’ bedrooms. They could have dealt with the broken boilers and the leaky roofs. We have dealt with it as a Labour Government, and I am proud of that record. I am also proud that we have refitted the 1,000 worst homes, delivering those improvements so that our military families could be in a decent home by Christmas 2025. We are now starting work on the next tranche of the worst homes so that our people can live in a decent home if they serve. That is the minimum we should offer those brave men and women who serve our forces.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Following the comments by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), may I make a plea that we put this political blame game to one side? The fleet halved under the previous Labour Government. We all have our fingerprints on the current state of the UK military. It is unedifying for us, for this House and for the state that we are in as a nation.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, which I recently set up with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who is longer in his place, as well as with Field Marshal Lord David Richards in the other place. Our aim is to highlight not only the scale of the threat that we face but the parlous current state of the British military. Does the Minister share that aim with us? Talking about both is necessary for the national conversation that was highlighted in the strategic defence review but has not happened. Will he join us in talking about the threat, and also give an honest depiction of the state of the UK military so that our public can be informed and can tell us what they would like us to do?
Luke Pollard
I follow the hon. Gentleman on Twitter, so I will be very keen to see the end of the political blame game of his tweets. I look forward to seeing what he tweets next. It might be the embodiment of that spirit that we have just heard here.
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the munitions and stockpiles that we inherited, which were far too low for the threat that we are facing. That is the reason why we have already made announcements about increasing the amount of munitions that we are buying for our armed forces. He is also right to talk about the threat. The Defence Secretary has spoken from this Dispatch Box about the increasing threat that Russia, in particular, poses to the United Kingdom and our allies, and we will continue to do that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his new all-party group to have that conversation, which is an important one about how we address the underfunding and hollowing out of our forces that we inherited. I will also be able to help him understand the progress that we are now making under this Labour Government to restock and to rearm: a lot of work done, but a lot of work still to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister look at the sorry tale of Glenart Castle Mess in Longbridge, Birmingham? This is armed forces accommodation not from decades ago; it opened in 2017 at a cost to the taxpayer of £36 million. It was built with 95% flammable external cladding, and the fire defects within the accommodation have now been judged to be so severe that the facility will be closed for up to a year at further great cost to the taxpayer. This was hopelessly mismanaged by the previous Government. The armed forces personnel who work at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham do an essential job, and they deserve better.
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I know he has been assiduous in asking detailed parliamentary questions about the refurbishment and refit of the Longbridge mess, and I am very happy to meet him to hear directly about his and his constituents’ concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Well-placed sources are suggesting that the number of Type 26 hulls on the order book may be reduced or transferred to our Norwegian allies. I appreciate that Labour has a track record of reducing the number of frigate and destroyer hulls, but can the Minister nevertheless confirm that there are no such plans and that we will proceed with a minimum of eight Type 26 frigates, particularly given the increase in Russian submarine activity discussed by his colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on Monday?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a Defence Minister in the last Government, the state of the forces that he passed over to this Government. When it comes to frigates—I could bore the House on this; it is one of my favourite subjects—he will also know that the incredible deal we have signed with Norway sustains Type 26 production on the Clyde for many years to come and involves not only the eight British Royal Navy Type 26s but five Norwegian ones. We are currently working with Norway on build slots. That will create a combined force—a truly interoperable, interchangeable force. Indeed, the only difference between a Royal Navy Type 26 and a Norwegian Type 26 will be the language on the signs. That interchangeability is at the heart of the new defence agreement that we have signed with Norway, and part of an agreement about how we can work more closely with our joint expeditionary force allies in northern Europe, which I hope can be expanded to other nations as we look to sell the Type 31 frigates to more of our partners.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister will have recognised the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about wanting to see the defence investment plan published as soon as possible, and I hope Treasury Ministers will share that understanding. I believe that history is important. When Russia annexed the Crimea, we saw no meaningful increase in defence spending. When Russia violated Minsk I, we saw no increase, and when it violated Minsk II, we saw no increase. When it launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign European country, we saw no meaningful increase. Does the Minister agree that the debate about defence needs to be constructive and, hopefully, cross-party, and that the country expects us to fund defence properly and urgently?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he asked his questions. I notice that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was agreeing with every word that he said in relation to the cuts and the lack of increase in defence spending. I recommend to my hon. Friend and all colleagues in the House the report produced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when he was in charge of the Defence Committee, called “Shifting the Goalposts”. It sets out the amount of GDP spend on defence going back a number of Governments. It shows that the last Labour Government left defence spending at 2.5% of GDP in 2010, a figure sadly never matched in the following 14 years. We are getting back to 2.5% of GDP. April 2027 is when we will hit that, and we will set out how we will be spending that in the defence investment plan that will be published shortly.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Successive UK Governments have spent years cutting defence spending, reducing the size of our armed forces to record lows, dismantling our Navy, slashing Scottish regiments and hollowing out investment in essential equipment and training. There is a continued refusal to join SAFE— Security Action for Europe—even when Canada is joining. There are delays to the strategic defence review, no certainty as to when the defence investment plan will be released and no urgency from the Prime Minister to act on the recommendations that make it clear that there is a £28 billion black hole in the existing plan. What is the plan to deal with the Prime Minister’s “corrosive complacency”, and how are Scottish voters supposed to trust this Labour Government when, according to the SDR’s authors, they are failing so categorically to keep us safe and threatening the security of Scotland?
Luke Pollard
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at our record, which includes a Type 26 deal that sustains shipbuilding on the Clyde and investment in a welding school in Scotland that we had to step in and fund because the SNP Government chose not to. It is good that the SNP Government have now finally realised that the defence of the realm is important, but I would ask him to pass on to the SNP Government that I am still waiting for a proper reply to our offer to match-fund a second defence technical excellence college in Scotland. We want to have two in Scotland. We have provided the funding for one, and I hope his Government will match-fund the second. I am still waiting for a reply on that, and while this goes on, we are moving further and further away from more young Scots being able to access the courses that they could be doing from September onwards if the Scottish Government would agree to this.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am proud to be part of a Government who are building ships in Scotland, whereas our Scottish Government colleagues are building ferries in Poland, Turkey and now China. Quite incredible.
Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I always use security guards at my surgeries, and a young chap who attended my surgery last year in Oxgangs library had just left 3 Rifles. He said he had left because he had joined some years ago on the promise of travel and excitement but spent a lot of time in barracks because of the lack of funding in our armed services. The last time I visited 3 Rifles, they had just come back from Finland, and some were about to go back there to serve alongside our allies. Some were due to go to Iraq, but I understand that that trip might not have happened. They are all now better paid. Outside the barracks site, people can see their homes getting renovated, and I have to say that there is a bit of jealousy about the quality of the kitchens.
Recently, just before the recess, I was able to give a tour to a young apprentice from one of our defence primes who lives in Balerno in Edinburgh South West. She was very clear that this was not an apprenticeship or a job; it was a whole career that she had before her, because of the scale of what is happening in the sector. When the Minister goes around our defence establishments and our defence contractors, what is the mood? Do they trust us to deliver against this budget commitment?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and the armed forces personnel he spoke to and about in his question. We have a British Army that is currently globally deployed. I am incredibly proud, as I imagine the whole House is, of our forces that are deployed in Estonia as part of our forward land force and in Cyprus and across the middle east in support of our allies, and those that are training and have been in support of our High North allies on various exercises. I do not ask our forces to comment on party political matters because they are there to serve the Government of the day, but I do know that having them and their families living in homes without damp, mould, leaky roofs or broken boilers greatly improves their mood. That is precisely why this Government are delivering an upgrade to nine in 10 service family accommodation units in the next 10 years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the challenges of tying defence expenditure to GDP is that the economy fluctuates. When Labour crashed the economy in 2008, defence spending in GDP terms went up. The reality is that as the economy fluctuates over the course of this Parliament and the next, there could be a challenge for actual defence spending. As the Minister looks at the defence investment plan, can he ensure that the level of expenditure continues to rise so that we actually get the investment in defence that we need?
Luke Pollard
It is a Liz Truss klaxon moment, isn’t it? The hon. Member’s memory is so brief that he has forgotten about what Liz Truss and the Conservatives did to our economy only a few years ago. I agree that we need to increase defence spending. Let me say to him clearly: not a single person in uniform today—not an admiral, general or anyone of any rank who has served in the UK armed forces—has had a decade ahead of increasing defence spending. It is such a sizeable change when it comes to our armed forces spending. [Interruption.] I notice more chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Members are grumpy that it is a Labour Government who are increasing defence spending when their Government cut it, but I will continue happily working cross-party in support of our armed forces.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
When this Government took office, they inherited an armed forces on its knees and responded to that challenge with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and a bold 10-year strategic defence review to ensure that we have an armed forces that once again is able to protect our nation. That is why it is so important that we get a defence investment plan as quickly as possible. I have heard today from my hon. Friend that he is keen to get that out as quickly as possible and also that it should be the right plan. May I simply take this opportunity to urge him to keep going so we can get that plan as soon we can?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for not only his question, but the work he does. He is a quiet and determined champion for Sandhurst and people who train in his constituency. There is a real opportunity with the increasing defence investment that we are making to renew the facilities not just in Sandhurst, but in military accommodation and bases across the United Kingdom and further afield. It is not just infrastructure that we are increasing. I am especially proud to be part of a Government, and a ministerial team with the Defence Secretary, that are increasing support for childcare for those who serve, because it is our people, not just our equipment, that we should focus on, and that is what the defence investment plan will do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Minister accept and agree with the mood of the majority of the British people, and I think the mood of this House, which is to accelerate defence spending to 3% of GDP in this Parliament, not the next Parliament? Can the Minister confirm that the year-long delayed defence investment plan will arrive before the summer holidays?
Luke Pollard
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would like to give some of the money that his former Reform leader in Wales got from Russia to the defence budget, we would have a wee bit more than we have today.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Thales employs over 800 people, including 66 apprentices, on its site in Templecombe in my constituency. There it develops world-leading sonar systems for the Royal Navy’s Astute and Dreadnought submarines, as well as delivering critical systems to enhance UK security and defence. Given the training capability gap identified in the strategic defence review, how will the Secretary of State increase funding for apprenticeships to ensure that we address skills shortages?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her question and for calling out and celebrating the work of Thales in her constituency. I have visited a number of Thales sites recently and have been impressed not just by the management, but in particular by the apprentices, who feel that there is a bright future ahead of them. She will know that we have announced that Yeovil will be one of five new defence technical excellence colleges, which is not too far from her constituency. That is a £10 million investment in each DTEC, designed to increase the number of places available for young people to take defence and defence-adjacent courses supporting not just defence primes, but, importantly, the wider ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprises. By increasing defence spending, we do not want only to bolster those large defence companies; there is a huge opportunity to grow smaller defence SMEs as well, and addressing the skills challenges they have is a key part of that.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have served on operations under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and I can tell horror stories of how I was treated, which led to 15-plus years of complex PTSD. When I finally rebuilt my life, I wanted to ensure that nobody ever had to go through what I went through. As soon as I got here six years ago, I worked cross-party to say that anything under 3% on defence spending—this was in the last Parliament, when my Government were in charge—was unacceptable. There is not a serious professional in the defence industry who thinks the current level of spending is adequate to meet the world’s needs. Does the Minister think that it is a serious investment that we are making at the moment?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for being honest about the consequences of his time in service. It is so important that when any veteran who has served in our forces needs to access help, they know that it is available. It is platforming those experiences and being honest about them that enables more people to come forward, so I thank him for that.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to increase defence spending. I want to increase defence spending, we have already increased defence spending, and we will be spending 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. However, I entirely appreciate how he made his remarks, and the Minister for Veterans and I are happy to talk to him about his experiences to see if we can learn from them and help others in a similar situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
National security depends on more than conventional defence spend, because our democracies can be brought down by methods other than weapons. There are concerns that the public are not yet sufficiently aware of the risk and reality of foreign information manipulation and interference. How does tackling this aspect of hybrid warfare feature in a cross-departmental way within the Government?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to go beyond conventional defence. That is why we have conventional and nuclear deterrence as part of our armed forces posture. She will also have heard in my opening remarks about the investment we are making in cyber. This is not just a Ministry of Defence effort; increasingly, if we are to deliver the national security we need, we need a whole-of-Government approach. That means the MOD working with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and the devolved Governments to be able to tackle the deliberate misinformation that we see our adversaries trying to pump into our newsfeeds. Let me be very clear that we do not accept in any way Russian interference or any interference in our democracy or our way of life, but across Government we are having a national conversation that enables people to be better equipped to identify and challenge it, as well as putting more pressure on social media companies to remove it and not have it on their platforms in the first place.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My question follows on perfectly from that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Lord Robertson said that we are ill prepared for the threats of today, never mind tomorrow. While Britain may not be under daily attack from missiles and tanks—not yet, anyway—we are under daily assault by misinformation and disinformation from hostile actors who are targeting our institutions, democracy and social cohesion. The Minister has referred to the investments and operational changes that have been put into cyber and electromagnetic security. Given the foundational nature of the challenge to our democracy, is he convinced that the Chancellor is convinced of the urgent need to make huge investments in this area? This is a challenge we have never experienced before—a challenge that collapses the traditional idea of the frontline with the home front.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for the way that he posed his question. There was much in it that I agree with him on. He is certainly right that we are not at war but nor are we at peace. We can look at a number of domains where we see UK forces and infrastructure being attacked, the cyber domain being the most obvious. The Defence Secretary revealed only last week the threats to our undersea infrastructure from covert Russian activity, and we must be able to call it out and say to Putin, “We see what you are doing. You will not have deniability.” In fact, the military call it “denying deniability”, which is a typical military phrase, but I think we all know what that means. There is more to be done here, including the national conversation about the threats that we face and how all of us can, in our own way, take actions—just updating the operating system on our phones makes us and the country safer. There is lots more that we can do, especially in this House, to further support that, and I am happy to have a conversation with him about how we do that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the key recommendation of a national conversation to build support and understanding among the population, it is all very well having debates here or in Whitehall, but what conversations are the Government having with the Departments for Education and for Culture, Media and Sport, the BBC and social media providers about the issues that are faced and about communication with the public to build support for funding and increase understanding of the challenges we face?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very fair question. My colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Coaker, is the Minister leading on the national conversation. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that Lord Coaker recently published the defence diplomacy strategy. Although it deals with more traditional diplomacy, it also deals with the necessity of speaking to our own people and to the wider population about how to respond to the threats we face. We are still in the early stages of forming the proposal for that formal national conversation, but, again, it must be a cross-Government effort that includes the Cabinet Office and Departments beyond the Ministry of Defence. The way we defend our nation in the 21st century is not just about the brilliant men and women in uniform; it is a whole-of-Government and whole-of-nation effort. That is why we are trying to kick-start that conversation. A debate about defence spending certainly contributes to that.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Have the Government considered issuing defence bonds, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, to ringfence capital for defence spending? If not, why not?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Lib Dem proposal. I would be interested to see the detail on who ultimately pays for it. He will know we have made a commitment that, following the publication of the defence investment plan, we will publish the defence finance and investment strategy, which will set out how we can support businesses large and small and bring further investment into the sector. It will deal with everything from preventing small defence businesses from being debanked—a real scandal and problem for small businesses as they seek to grow—to leveraging patient and venture capital with a potential interest in defence, in order to expand UK businesses and support the development of capabilities. That will renew our own capabilities and provide export opportunities. We are doing more work in that regard.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Often, most of the focus is on munition and defence systems, but what are the Government doing to boost defence numbers and ensure that our military personnel are properly paid for their vital role? For too long, our junior non-commissioned officer ranks have been poorly paid and had poor living and working conditions. A defence network with adequate numbers and good morale is a necessary complement to a well-equipped military.
Luke Pollard
I look forward to being in Northern Ireland next week for the announcement of the Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is the fifth of our five defence growth deals. I am not allowed to say the total amount of investment, but we have announced £200 million of a £250 million pot, so the maths will hopefully give some reassurance that a big announcement for the hon. Lady’s part of the world is coming shortly. She is absolutely right to talk about the numbers. We have not only addressed the problems in the recruitment system—especially the time of flight between someone applying and getting to a training establishment, which took far too long—but introduced novel forms of entry. The direct cyber entry, through which we recruit people for their cyber skills, not for their skill in running around a muddy field with a heavy backpack on, is a good example. It is one new way in which we are getting the skills and talent that we need into our armed forces.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced. I would recommend a little caution in blaming previous Governments for their defence inadequacies; I do not think that any of the parties that have been in government in recent years have clean hands when it comes to the scrutiny of those decisions.
I want to ask about defence financing. The Minister has announced a £5 billion uplift for this year. Why, then, is there an exercise to excise £3.5 billion through in-year savings? How much of that is carried forward from last year’s exercise to excise £2.6 billion through in-year savings?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Defence spending is rising rapidly in China, Russia, the UK, the US and all over Europe. In every country in the world, there is pressure on welfare budgets and there are increasing levels of human and social inequality. A global environmental disaster is on the horizon. At the same time, the agencies for peace—such as the UN and its agencies—and overseas aid budgets are being cut. Global inequality is getting worse, and the conditions for future wars are being created. What plans do the Government have to put some energy into a UN-led peace process to bring a cessation to the dreadful conflicts going on around the world? Where is the investment for peace in the future, or are we going to continue down the road of spending more on arms and less on people’s human needs?
Luke Pollard
I might spend more of my time in secure rooms at the Ministry of Defence without my mobile phone, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time in this Chamber hearing from Foreign Office Ministers about our work to call for a lasting peace, not just in Gaza but in the wider middle east. We continue to do that; we continue to invest in that. The world is a more dangerous place every single day. That is why we are increasing defence spending to deter aggression. The point of our armed forces is to deter aggression, and then—and only then—to defeat it if necessary. He is right to say that the consequences of conflict are frequently felt by the most vulnerable. That is precisely why we are continuing to call for peace, not just to end Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine—a free and independent sovereign nation—but to bring a lasting peace, with a two-state solution, for Gaza and Israel in the middle east.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Thanks to the tireless work by many in Leonardo in Yeovil, in the Government and beyond, the new medium helicopter contract was awarded and there is more investment in Yeovil, so thank you. However, without the defence investment plan, investment across the country is still being held up. I know that the Minister is working hard to get the plan right, and I thank him for that, but will he set out what lessons have been learned from the delays to the new medium helicopter and the DIP, to ensure that we fund defence procurement more effectively?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed not just the signing of the new medium helicopter contract, but the improvements that we secured to it. It was shocking, frankly, that the Conservative deal that we inherited had only 8% UK content in the exports—we have increased that. He will also know that we have awarded Yeovil a defence technical excellence college to support the skills needs not just of Leonardo, but of the wider ecosystem. He will also know, because I texted him yesterday, that the Boeing deal we have announced today—£149 million for Chinook and Apache helicopters—also includes investment in, and support for, jobs in his Yeovil constituency. We are continuing to invest in defence and in Yeovil.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary, said that we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget, so will the Minister explain to my constituents why this Government can set out their welfare spending plans until 2031, but cannot publish their defence investment plan for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I do not think Britain gets stronger by pushing kids into poverty. That is the fundamental difference, as I see it, between the welfare policies of our two parties. I am absolutely clear that we should address the high levels of child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—that is exactly the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have said it a number of times, that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will be published when it is ready. I think he would, in hindsight, much prefer a plan that is ready to be published over one that is not. That is why we are working to deliver our defence investment plan, which will set out spending for the next 10 years, up to 2036 or so.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I entered this House months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and I was struck at the time that the debates on Ukraine were solemn, dutiful and not party political. The contrast with the debate over defence spending is stark. The Leader of the Opposition has decided to use it as a foil for her party, while the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was on the radio last night saying that the Labour party will not be helped electorally by an increase in defence spending. With Trump making threats about US commitment to NATO, does the Minister share my view that we need to link armed forces capabilities to the external threat, rather than indulge in this party political navel gazing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to the nation. He is absolutely right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. It benefits not just the United Kingdom but every NATO member state, including the United States, and we are stronger when we stand together. That is why we are delivering against the NATO target and delivering new NATO regional plans, and it is why a debate that looks at how we can develop the latest capabilities, and bring forward more skills into the sector and more private sector investment into our defence companies, is good for us. We do this because it is in the national interest to support our national security. I stand at the Dispatch Box not for party politics but for our national security. In darker times, I hope that is what we would all be doing.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
To listen to the Minister, one might think that the DIP matters very little and that we are cracking on regardless, but the truth is that the MOD has been out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor, and the DIP is pinned down by the Treasury. The DIP matters a very great deal to industry because the demand signals that it will give allow industry to work up. From fighter jets to frigates, and from bayonets to bullets, these items cannot just be pulled off the shelves. This DIP matters rather more than the Minister is saying. Is that not the case?
Luke Pollard
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for most of this urgent question. I have been very clear, but he is trying to put words in my mouth; I appreciate him giving it a good go, but I am afraid he is not going to get away with that. We live in a new era of threat—I think he knows that too—and we are dealing with hollowed out and underfunded forces. He might not be able to put that in a soundbite, but privately I think he can concede, with hindsight, that the state of the forces the Conservative Government passed to this Labour Government was perhaps not as he would have liked. We have to invest in our forces, and in new stockpiles and technologies; we have to retire old kit and equipment that would not work in Ukraine and is unsuited to modern combat; and we have to do all that at the same time as addressing the defence housing crisis, the recruitment crisis and ever-falling morale. We have now stabilised morale in the armed forces. We have a plan to increase defence spending, with an extra £5 billion, moving to 2.5%, 3% and 3.5%, as I have set out. We also plan to invest in the latest technologies. I hope that with hindsight the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment, but I entirely understand why he has to have an attack-y soundbite for his socials in the meantime.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Nothing is more important to our national security than our nuclear deterrent, and we in Westmorland and Furness are not only massively proud to provide the home for the Trident submarine programme; we also recognise it is a grave responsibility, just as it is in the constituency of my neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), where it is built.
Our ability to build those submarines and defend our country depends on us being able to recruit and retain brilliant staff from around the country and beyond, and the role of the local authority in providing housing and services is crucial. Does the Minister agree that there has been a complete disconnect, given that the local government settlement leaves Westmorland and Furness council with a 31% cut, massively hampering the ability of Barrow, Kendal and Penrith to do the things that it needs to do to attract the people to keep our country safe? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and put that right?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for our independent nuclear deterrent. It was a shame that when the Liberal Democrats were in power, the decision to renew the deterrent was delayed—I know he had strong views on that at the time. As the MP for Devonport, where our Vanguard-class submarines are refitted, I am also really proud of the people I represent who make a material difference to the defence of our nation every day through their hard work in Devonport dockyard.
I met representatives of Team Barrow on Monday, when I was in Blackpool talking about the new defence technical excellence college that we have announced. That will support not only Blackpool and the Fylde, but Barrow, Blackburn, Lancashire and a number of colleges, including Wirral Met college. I recognise that defence is making the argument for skills and putting money where our policy is by investing in them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, his question about local government funding is for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I reassure him that the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to Team Barrow is strong, and I am happy to brief him further on that if it would be useful.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have listened carefully. The Minister knows full well that committing to spend 3% or 3.5% tomorrow does not mean that the Government cannot commit to commissioning that expenditure now. He is aware that the delivery pipeline can often take five to 10 years in any case, and therefore the defence investment plan becomes vitally important. He has evaded answering the question of when, but surely he can put to us a deadline date by which the defence investment plan can be delivered. In doing so, can he commit to ensuring that RNAS Culdrose and the national drone hub in my constituency will see growth as a result?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is a wily Member, trying to ask the same question from a different angle; I appreciate his effort. He will know that we are working flat-out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. As a fellow south-west MP, let me say how important it is that we support not just the capabilities we have, but new capabilities: the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth and the incredible aerial drone facilities across the peninsula, including in Cornwall. There is real opportunity to deliver that. The defence growth deal for Plymouth certainly includes wider knock-on effects for the entire peninsula, and the local innovation partnerships fund bid that was secured from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology for our part of the world provides support for the entire peninsula in the development of new autonomous and drone technologies, which I hope will be accelerated even further in the years ahead.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As I said earlier in the week, Northern Ireland’s geographical position means that it increasingly occupies a key geo-security location, particularly in the light of the threat to our transatlantic underground cables. In that context, will the strategic review deal with the situation that was revealed in a parliamentary answer: that there are only five Royal Navy personnel based in Northern Ireland, and only 70 RAF personnel? Surely if we are to deal with threats that are increasingly evident, we need a proper distribution and balance of personnel across the United Kingdom. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, maybe he will bring news in that regard.
Luke Pollard
I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the numbers for the Army, which are considerably higher than those he suggested for the Navy and the Air Force. It is right that we distribute and allocate our forces personnel against the mission taskings they are given, but he is also right to talk about the key importance of protecting our undersea cables, including in his part of the world. It is precisely for that reason that we are seeing more investment in technologies that enable us to defend, monitor and protect those undersea cables. As he will know—we have met a number of times to talk about this—I want to see more investment in every part of our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and I hope to bring him good news on that next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am looking forward to the good news. I thank the Minister for his answers today and for his positive TV interview this morning, which encouraged us all, but will he also announce the next stage of the defence growth fund? No one doubts his commitment or interest, and he has made regular visits to the defence sector in Northern Ireland. It is so important that Northern Ireland can gain from the defence growth fund incentive and that it completes its own specific growth deal. When the Minister comes to Northern Ireland next week, can we expect the balance of the defence growth fund to be announced officially? I think we all know what figure is. It would do no harm to announce it today, Minister.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman tempts me. The opportunity for our defence industries in Northern Ireland is considerable, not just in supporting large defence businesses like Thales, which produces the lightweight multi-role missile in Belfast, but particularly in supporting the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are based in Northern Ireland. I was with Boeing this morning, announcing the new helicopter maintenance contract, and indeed Boeing has made a large investment in Northern Ireland.
There is a huge opportunity to make the case that a career in defence—whether in uniform or in a civilian role backing our forces—is not just a good job, but a good, well-paid, decent job that can provide an entire career of opportunities. The more that we can make a positive case for investment in the core defence industries and in the industries that sit alongside defence—such as digital technologies, which could have defence applications—the more that we will be able to keep us all safe and provide young people with good opportunities. I look forward to speaking to the hon. Gentleman and Northern Ireland colleagues further about that opportunity very soon.
Bills presented
Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) (Payment of Fines) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Freddie van Mierlo, supported by Layla Moran, Charlie Maynard, Calum Miller, Olly Glover, Dr Danny Chambers, Pippa Heylings, Mr Will Forster, Vikki Slade, Martin Wrigley, Manuela Perteghella and Rachel Gilmour, presented a Bill to omit from the Water Industry Act 1991 provision enabling water companies to make an application for a change to the date by which a penalty or portion of a penalty must be paid or to appeal to the High Court in respect of such a date; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 420).
Food Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke, supported by Tim Farron, presented a Bill to make provision about a national food strategy; to make provision about certain duties relating to the implementation of that strategy; to make provision about procurement of British fruit and vegetable produce by certain public bodies; to make provision about resilience of UK-farmed food supply; to place a duty on certain public authorities to promote access to healthy and affordable food; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 421).
Creative Arts and Culture (Broadcasting Requirements)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regular broadcast of news about creative arts and culture; to make provision about duties on the Secretary of State, Ofcom and certain broadcasters in relation to such broadcasts; and for connected purposes.
First let me declare an interest: I am a classically trained violinist who learnt at Beauchamp Music Group and benefited from a brilliant musical provision at Newent community school. I am also a guitarist, keyboardist and singer-songwriter who played in rock bands including Eyes of Eden, Never Home Club, Ten Second Star and the New Loafers, but unless hon. Members were going to gigs in Gloucestershire in the late 1990s or they were listening to Radio 1 at one particular moment on one particular evening, they will not have heard of those bands.
I want to ask Members of the House: when was the last time you heard or saw news dedicated to culture or our brilliant creative arts? Of course, we will all have seen dedicated coverage of a singular creative news story, but what about a bulletin that brings regular, updated coverage of cultural events that are happening both locally and nationally: art exhibitions, concerts, orchestras, dance classes, art groups and choirs? So many great events are happening that we just do not hear about, due in part to irregular and fragmented news coverage, yet we all know when the local football club down the road is relegated or—hopefully—promoted.
People might instinctively think that sport has an enormous audience; of course it does, but millions of people attend theatres, galleries, concerts and cinemas every week as spectators. This is not a niche interest. It is a massive, underserved audience. Regular creative arts bulletins would serve that audience in the same way that sports bulletins serve sports fans. But there is another audience beyond the spectators: the participants, young and old, in all genres, at all levels, professional and amateur, elite and—perhaps most importantly—ordinary. Ordinary people participating in the creative arts are doing something extraordinary for themselves, their community and far beyond.
A refrain heard all too often following the regular news programmes is, “And now for the sports and weather.” But what if we added one extra word? I hope that my Bill might lead to the following phrase: “And now for the sports, culture and weather.” It would be a small but important alteration to how we receive news and to the value that we place on cultural events.
In practice, my Bill would instruct Ministers and responsible bodies such as Ofcom to engage with and ultimately, if necessary, require broadcasters who run regular news programmes to complement their sports news bulletins with a dedicated culture bulletin highlighting creative arts events and activities. By no means would this replace sports coverage or seek to replicate it, since of course sports have more competitions and leagues, and thereby generate a certain type of interest and news; it would simply level the playing field—excuse the pun—or, to put it another way, bring things into harmony, ensuring that everyone is playing in the same key. [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for laughing.
I love sport. Indeed, I represent the constituency of Rugby—probably the only place in the world where a sport was both born in and named after a town. It is important that sports news is broadcast. It is an important part of people’s lives, and promotes healthy lifestyles and much more. Regular sports bulletins in broadcast news normalise sport as an important part of community life, but there is no objective reason why the same should not be done for the creative arts. I would argue that cultural news items are just as important a fixture in people’s lives. After all, who does not listen to music, watch films, or appreciate artwork or poetry?
Cultural institutions, including theatres, cinemas, galleries and local venues, as well as institutions without physical venues, including numerous music groups, such as brass bands, artists’ groups and creative clubs in schools, colleges, universities and civil society, host newsworthy events every day, yet there is no consistent, recognisable broadcast space where audiences can receive up-to-date creative arts news. That represents a clear gap in current provision.
Cultural events and the creative arts are a massive contributor to our economy. According the House of Commons Library, in 2024, the latest year available, the creative industries generated £145.8 billion in gross value added, accounting for 5.5% of total UK GVA. In comparison, the sports industry generated £20.6 billion, or 0.8% of total UK GVA. Exports in 2021 included £9.1 billion in goods and £45.6 billion in services. The economic contribution is undeniable, but the benefits of promoting cultural news items go far beyond the economic.
Creative arts engagement improves physical and mental health, cognitive function, recovery and social connection. A report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found grade-A evidence that arts engagement reduces depression, improves early years development, enhances mood and life satisfaction, and supports older people’s cognitive and, importantly, physical health. Social prescribing schemes show a return of approximately £3 for every £1 invested.
We often hear how sports participation improves discipline, teamwork and confidence—in essence, some important hard skills. People often have the misconception that the creative arts are all about soft skills or, as I like to put it, sitting around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”. I have done that—
John Slinger
I am not going to do it now. It is lovely, but it is not the only part.
To learn an instrument or create a painting takes massive amounts of hard work; to play in an orchestra or act in a play takes discipline, so the creative arts are about both soft and hard skills. We are told that in this age of artificial intelligence we need creative thinkers, as well as those with hard skills. Increasing the visibility of cultural news would stimulate interest among the public in becoming a spectator, a participant or both. It would inspire people, especially young people, to engage in the right kind of AI—actual involvement. It would broaden the reach of creative arts to new and more diverse audiences. It would help stimulate local high streets and local economies, and drive job creation, particularly in a sector where it is often too hard for artists to make a living, despite their talent and hard work. It would help the creative arts to strengthen community cohesion.
How would this work in practice? My Bill would legislate for a central pool of news items that organisations can submit to, from which regional and national broadcasters could source their stories. Ofcom would have a duty to amend the broadcasting code, and all public service broadcasters and others deemed by the Secretary of State to have a significant audience would be required to include regular cultural news bulletins.
As part of my campaign, I have launched an online petition to gather support from the creative world, the creative industries and the general public. Members should not just take my word for this: more than 250 organisations and individuals already back my idea.
Creative arts bulletins featuring in all news broadcasts will elevate and normalise the creative arts, stimulate interest in schools, promote activities at both national and local levels, boost engagement and participation, and support town centre regeneration and economic growth. The Bill does not require Government spending. It does not subsidise the arts, although I obviously welcome more funding for the arts under this Labour Government. It does not displace or denigrate sport. It simply ensures that creative arts and culture are given the visibility that they so deserve in our national conversation.
We have the best creative arts in the world and one of the most vibrant scenes at all levels of society, particularly in my constituency.
John Slinger
And in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
It is time that more people heard about this—heard about what is going on nationally, regionally and locally. Creative arts bulletins would help to bring about the mind shift needed throughout society to normalise, celebrate and promote participation in the creative arts and help to embed them ever more deeply in our national consciousness.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Slinger, Adam Jogee, Jess Brown-Fuller, Cat Eccles, Bambos Charalambous, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Dr Beccy Cooper and Jonathan Davies present the Bill.
John Slinger accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 June, and to be printed (Bill 419).
Pension Schemes Bill: Ways and Means (No. 2)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision in connection with—
(a) the transfer by virtue of the Act of any property, rights or liabilities of the AWE pension scheme, or
(b) the tax treatment of persons in relation to such a transfer, that scheme or any pension scheme established under provision made under the Act for persons who are or have been members of the AWE pension scheme.—(Torsten Bell.)
Pension Schemes Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 July 2025 (Pension Schemes Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 103 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 155 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 95 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Lords amendments 68 to 76, 78, 80, 84 and 86 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 2
Asset management
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.
Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.
Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.
Torsten Bell
Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.
This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.
A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.
First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.
Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.
Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.
Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.
Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a pensioner. The pensioners who come to me are a wee tad unsure about what is on offer for them. They are perhaps confused, because they get advice from people here to move in one direction, and then somebody else will give them advice to move in another direction. What can the Minister and the Government do to provide the correct support and advice to people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time when it is really important? We have seen many scams, and we hear about much happening in relation to this issue. I want to ensure that pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very much.
Torsten Bell
As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents.
On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are leaving too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone. That is why the default pensions parts of the Bill, which I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. People can do what they want, but they will not end up with a bad outcome just because they are faced with a confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that for those individuals.
Let me come back to small pots. I will make one specific point, which was raised in the other place, regarding worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave, and have a dormant pot for a period of time. I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously sees contributions into pension pots continue, rather than those pots becoming dormant, and there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated. That safeguard covers exactly this kind of eventuality, even though it would be only a very small number of cases.
Torsten Bell
I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not.
We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.
The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.
Jim Shannon
I have just been sent a question from a person back home, which I will ask directly as it has been put to me. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s revised investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? That is the question I have been asked, and I need to ask it of the Minister.
Torsten Bell
If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.
It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.
I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.
Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.
Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.
Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.
I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.
Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. [Interruption.] The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place.
The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line.
Returning to Lords amendment 1, which the Government are seeking to eject from this Bill, relates to the mandation powers. I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen. That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it.
The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, “It’s all fine, nothing to see here”; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings. Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place. I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For many people, a pension is their second largest investment, after their home, but we must bear in mind that many others can only dream of having a private pension, as they face the challenges of the cost of living crisis. We Liberal Democrats want to make sure that pensions work effectively for those who invest in them, and there is much to be welcomed in the Bill.
I want to share a personal reflection with the House. My father, who was a lorry driver, feared poverty in his pensionable age, and saved massively because he had seen that poverty with his own father, but sadly he was perhaps not as financially literate as some other people. He kept his savings in shares; then the stock market crashed in 2008, and his savings for his pension were virtually wiped out. With today’s greater safeguards, that might not have happened; there might not have been the mis-selling that he felt had taken place, or the poor advice that he received from advisers. In that regard, the Bill takes significant steps in the right direction.
We Liberal Democrats, however, want to see our economy working well, and that means a lack of state interference, in the form of direction of investment. It is right that the state should encourage investors, suggest where they should go, and have appropriate schemes to guide them, but the idea of direction is anathema to us. We have repeatedly seen what is almost a nervous twitch, whether through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 or the introduction of facial ID on our streets, as the Government give more and more powers to Ministers, and that disturbs us. We Liberal Democrats plan to vote against the Government amendments relating to Lords amendments 1 and 15 and specifically to mandation, because mandation is the dead hand of Government on growth, particularly when it comes to people’s pensions, and it goes against our free-economy approach.
The Minister may be a reasonable individual—who knows?—but we have spent many hours on this, and the clock is ticking for the Government. In two or three years’ time, we may have a new Government, and we need only look at the other side of the Atlantic to see what democracy can throw up. We could be giving a future Government whose colour we do not know a challenging approach to mandation. Any reassurances that the Minister gives would not be worth the candle then. We fear that going ahead with mandation would be feckless, and dangerous for our pensioners.
Another area, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) will touch on later, is pension scandals. The Government missed an opportunity to address pension scandals as part of this behemoth of a Bill, but Lords amendment 78, which they are sadly opposing, applies to the AEA Technology pensioners. That is a small step in the right direction to address the injustice that these pensioners have suffered. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee drew on a report by the National Audit Office that highlighted that civil servants were poorly advised by the Government on transferring the scheme to the private sector. Many of the AEAT pensioners have significantly lost out financially. I call on the Government to reflect on that and to take a small step in the right direction. We will vote against the Government motion to disagree to Lords amendment 78.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I would like to focus my remarks on Lords amendments 1 and 27, which I believe limit the Government’s ability to direct pension schemes away from what I regard as high-risk assets with an uncertain future. Ministers will recall that I put forward a series of proposals as the Bill passed through this House, including on divestment from fossil fuels, which is what I will focus on this afternoon.
The local government pension scheme currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, so we can see quite clearly that the voluntary approach to divestment has failed. Even now, ordinary working people’s wages—their hard-earned savings—are being channelled into accelerating a climate crisis that hits the global working class the hardest. Lords amendments 1 and 27 prevent the Government from setting down binding targets on certain investments, which makes it politically harder to bring down investments in fossil fuels. We know there is no retirement for any of us without a liveable environment. It sounds obvious, but that reality is not reflected in how pensions are currently managed, and the Government know this. Ministers in the other place acknowledge that investments in thermal coal—one of the most harmful fossil fuels—are high risk from both a climate and financial viewpoint. They are bad for the planet and bad for pension holders, who need stable, long-term investments.
This country removed thermal coal from the grid in 2024, because it has no future. Alarmingly, however, we know from written questions that neither the Government nor the Pensions Regulator have a clear picture of how much is still invested in this soon-to-be stranded asset. Even funds that are held up as leaders on climate, such as Border to Coast and the universities superannuation scheme, have hundreds of millions of pounds invested in thermal coal. That is why we need to get a grip on this issue. There are no existing requirements on schemes to report on any fossil fuel investment, and hardly any do so voluntarily. The first step is to provide full transparency on such investments, followed by decisive action to phase them out. Will the Minister commit to writing to the biggest 50 pension schemes to get more detail on their level of thermal coal exposure, and will he follow it up by setting a time-bound expectation for schemes to exit such assets, starting with thermal coal? That may seem like a distant issue, but if workers are left exposed to stranded assets in their pensions, they will not forget the politicians who chose to look the other way.
This Bill was a major opportunity to redirect billions of pounds in workers’ pensions away from arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants, and into investments that benefit the very people who are paying in. That means green energy.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent and serious speech. Does he agree that, in addition to fossil fuels, local government pension schemes are exposed to industries and assets that our constituents rightly consider deeply unethical? They include tobacco companies, arms producers that are complicit in genocide, and other companies that are exploiting nature or our constituents for profit. Does he agree that there should be an ethical investment policy that covers all unethical investments?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
In fact, I raised something very similar when the Bill passed through this House.
The investments that we could make through our pension funds could go into green energy, which is the growth engine of the future, as well as into affordable and social housing, which is so needed in this country. That should be underpinned by greater democracy in our pension funds, so that workers have a say in where their money is invested. I believe that if that was the case, they would certainly choose to put it not into arms manufacturers or fossil fuels, but into decent homes for them and their communities.
The crisis in the middle east has exposed the fragility of our dependence on fossil fuels. A break in the supply chain thousands of miles away has a catastrophic cascading effect here, driving up costs and deepening the cost of living for our constituents.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Okay.
We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, even though some Members on the other side of the House seem to disagree with that. We must deliver long-term energy security and bring down bills through domestic green energy, but not only that. In this moment of deep crisis, the Government must pull every lever they can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, and that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today.
The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients.
If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here.
The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims.
I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for opening this debate. I was not expecting it to be quite so lively, so I will try to add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me. [Interruption.] That is hard to believe, I know, but I promise that I will mention pensioners in Harlow at least half a dozen times to make up for it.
I rise to speak in opposition to Lords amendments 6 and 77, but before I do so, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. It is one of the many things this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency of Harlow—that is one mention—with rising living costs. That can be coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension—that means the new state pension is increasing by £575 this year and the basic state pension by about £440—and launching the largest pension credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important.
Lords amendment 6, which I am sure is well-intentioned, would require the Government to carry out an interim review of employer contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Lords amendment is redundant, because the Government have already committed to that and will do so later in the year.
I am going to make the next bit, about Lords amendment 77, a little more racy just to entertain Members. Let me take them back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine—I will not mention his name—who turned around and said to me, “You’ve got gold-plated pensions, you teachers.” I am not saying this is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it is something it could do, and it always frustrates me when we create a divide between people receiving public sector pensions and people receiving private sector pensions. I would say that public sector workers, including teachers, and I used to be a teacher—the Chris Vince bingo card is going well today—work incredibly hard and contribute a huge amount to their pensions.
This does not mean that it is not right to review public sector pensions—we have to do that as a Government, as the right and proper thing to do—but it is worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords amendment 6, that we are already doing so. I am sure Lords amendment 77 is well-intentioned, but again it is redundant. In general, I say to people tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions that the duty of a Government should not be to make public sector pensions worse, but to make private pensions better, so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement.
I want to make a few cheeky requests of the Minister while he is in his place. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), is chuntering, but I am going to be nice to him because he has fantastic hair. The last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said that I had made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake, but who knows?
I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that he will continue to work with the Secretary of State for Health. The No. 1 thing pensioners in my constituency of Harlow talk to me about—I think I have mentioned them only twice in this speech—is the importance of our NHS. Given the wait times that pensioners have had to face at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, I am delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down, because we want our pensioners not only to have saved and be financially stable in their retirement, but to be healthy.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Sadly, it reflects the interests of Members that so few of us are here for a debate about one of the most important elements affecting the future of our constituents, friends, neighbours and, in fact, ourselves. Pensions are rather more than just a savings scheme; they are the thread that binds generations. They are the remarkable invention of our ancestors, who found a way to make sure that the energy, innovation and force of the young could be tied to the assets, education and experience of the old. It is that bond between generations that makes pension saving so special.
While I welcome much of what this Bill does, I fully align myself with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about mandation. In that one small area, this Bill repeats an error that was made nearly 30 years ago when the Government, for very understandable reasons—it was a very tense moment in pension savings, just after the Mirror Group Newspapers scandal and the Equitable Life scandal—took upon themselves powers, which were entirely reasonable at the time, to de-risk some of the private pension market. That de-risking was about moving savings, very gently at the beginning, from equities into bonds.
In the early days, that did not make much of a difference. It took the percentage of bonds in investment portfolios from 19.1% to 19.3%, and so on. However, although the intention was to de-risk very slightly, the accumulation of time means that the bond element of pensions has grown, so that in the UK the figure is now roughly 60%, whereas in Australia or Canada, which are similar economies, it is roughly 20%. That is a real problem not just because it means pensioners are getting a lower return—they are getting a return based on the debt of the country, not on the energy of young people—but because young people are not getting the energy or the lifeblood they so vitally need when they are starting their lives.
Let us look at the difference between equities and bonds. The truth is that bonds are fundamentally dead money: they are money taken or held by the state in ways that pay back over five, 10, 15, 20 or more years—in fact, a couple of times, over 100 years. Equities are fundamentally different. It is true that they are not predictable and it is also true that they do have risk, but they are a bet on the energy of the young people in our community. They are that bond or ligature between generations that fundamentally makes a community strong, rather than tearing it apart.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen those bonds erode. What is the result? A slower growing economy. Why? Because there are no assets to invest. There is no water for the crops, if you like; there is no fertiliser for the soil. What else have we seen? Young people have been moving away because they do not have the opportunity to start their business, or when they do start their business, they do not then have the opportunity to go to the next stage. We see an amazing start-up culture here in the UK, but immediately they hit series A and B, people go to America—they go to California or to a Delaware corp and get foreign money. Again and again, that is happening because the state, for very understandable and entirely principled reasons, made a decision to take authority off savers in order to protect them, and I am afraid that that is what the Minister is doing again today.
I understand the Minister’s point. I understand why he feels he needs to take that power. He feels that the Government have a role in ensuring that pensioners get a better deal. I get that. He also feels that the best way to do that is for the state to exercise its authority over a market system. Again, I understand that. But the problem he has is a fundamental one: the only way we achieve the connection between generations and communities, and the only way we get that life flow of the living blood of an economy— the equities market—rather than the dead hand of the state through the bonds, is in a free market. By putting his hand on the tiller and his finger on the scales, he is changing that, and that incremental change over time will do much greater damage than he fully appreciates today, despite his best intentions and despite the intentions of the Bill. That is why I will not be supporting the Government today.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
First, may I express my support for the words of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) with regard to pre-1997 pensions and that long-standing scandal? It is a great injustice and it feels like successive Governments—including this one, sadly—are just waiting for the problem to literally die away.
I would like to speak to Lords amendment 79, which aims to ensure that pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of the new regulatory landscape the Bill creates. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to ensuring that the Bill works for individual savers. Of course, it must work for our economy and for industry, but it must, first and foremost, help the “little and less” saver. That requires ensuring that savers have access to decent relevant guidance on their pensions, because without guidance choice does not translate into good outcomes.
The reality is that engagement with pension guidance for the average person is, to put it simply, woeful and worsening. Around 90% of defined-contribution pots are accessed without any engagement with Pension Wise. Uptake of the service has fallen by about 4% since 2018, despite the fact that Pension Wise is demonstrably successful—nine out of 10 users say that they would recommend it to others. That context matters, because in 2015 the introduction of pension freedoms represented a significant opportunity to ensure that guidance could be offered to far more people. Individuals were given the responsibility for spending their pension savings, but that was often without a clear understanding of the tax implications or the consequences for later life. Since then, from 2015 to 2025, many, including the Work and Pensions Committee, have argued that this was precisely the period when an auto-enrolment-style trial for guidance should also have taken place.
The Government recognised the scale of the problem in 2022, when they introduced a stronger nudge towards Pension Wise. That followed a Department for Work and Pensions report that showed a marked increase, rising from 5% to 30%, in drawdown products being accessed without guidance. Over half of transfers were out of pension products, often driven by mistrust, and lower income savers were disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared with higher earners. Yet even then, the opportunity to trial the automatic booking of guidance appointments, which was backed by the Work and Pensions Committee and Age UK, was not taken.
Now, the landscape has changed again. The Bill reshapes the regulatory framework in a significant way, including through the introduction of defaults for pot holders. That makes this moment another opportunity to ensure that as many savers as possible receive good quality guidance, but that chance will be missed if guidance is not properly embedded alongside these reforms. Defaults will fundamentally affect how savers interact with their pensions. That means the Government must provide urgent clarity not just for savers, but for schemes and trustees. Schemes need clear and concise guidance on how defaults operate, and on what advice and guidance they can lawfully provide so that they are protected from future legal challenge, ambulance chasing or scandal.
Equally, savers themselves will need support to navigate what is often a collection of multiple pots with multiple defaults and varying outcomes. What should not happen is for a default system to be put in place without updated and clearly defined guidance alongside it. That would risk encouraging passive defaulting while alternatives are not properly explained or understood, which might act to supercharge the existing problem of disengagement rather than solve it. At the very least, we must ensure that people are given the opportunity to engage. The dashboard’s imminent introduction might address some of these problems, but it is not a silver bullet.
The Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister have set out a road map for reform, but the big glaring hole in that road map is access to guidance. I ask the Government to ensure that guidance is explicitly part of the plan, to set out clearly what role the Money and Pensions Service and free and impartial guidance will play for savers who want it, and to consider whether, alongside the necessary secondary legislation, the Department could publish a clear statement on the role of guidance in both the default and savings journey of pension savers.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 15 and, ultimately, what it still fails to address: the long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners.
The Chancellor’s decision last year diverted attention, with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF. While 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not. In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of those pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the AEA Technology and Carillion public sector pension schemes, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country’s Government and then ignored when you plead your case. Finally, 750,000 people in private defined-benefit schemes, the pre-1997 pensioners, have also lost out. We are talking about 979,000 people—almost 1 million pensioners—who have lost out on the regular increase for part, or for the whole part, of their pension.
The Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre-1997 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined-benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases—in some cases, for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half the real value of the pensions they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone, and who knows what will happen with energy costs.
What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the Government’s approach. They have been entirely willing to mandate how defined-contribution schemes invest, yet they remain unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendment would return us to a Bill that would make it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre-1997 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat. In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employers’ decisions. The imbalance is clear: employers decide, trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre-1997 pensioners. What is the value of a trustee? Surely it is not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based inthe USA.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I appreciate that the hon. Member is very learned on this subject, as are many Members on both sides of the House. Is he saying that the Bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any surplus from defined benefit schemes?
Clive Jones
For the pre-1997 pensioners in companies such as Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board, usually in the USA, says, “No, we are not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustees say you should have it.”
To ease surplus extraction without first addressing that injustice risks locking it in permanently. It is the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre-1997 pensioners. There will not be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the Minister’s blessing. The Minister said, during the Adjournment debate on 19 March, that there was a need to build the evidence base, but decades have already passed. Why has that not been done before? Pensioners are dying at a rate of 15 a week. Delay at this point is not neutral: it is a choice to delay, deny and wait until they die.
Those pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If the House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion.
I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre-1997 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre-1997 pensioners?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers. If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land.
The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?
The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.
Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level.
Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.
They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister, if he is ready.
Torsten Bell
I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made.
The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market.
I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.
Debbie Abrahams
Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?
Torsten Bell
I thank the Select Committee Chair for her intervention. The organisation she mentions has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench about the work of that organisation in these debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. It is an important thing to think about. Some of it reflects increasing international cross-border investments, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias among the UK’s defined contribution schemes.
Tom Tugendhat
One of the challenges with defined contribution schemes is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than one would like, and when one compares them with, for example, Canada or Australia, we see superfunds in certain countries and not in the UK. While the Minister is correct that this means slightly lower bias, it also means significantly less growth in the UK market, because there is less capital flowing. This is an argument for both young and old people. I know that the Minister understand this, but it is worth making that link. Pensions are just as much about funding youth as sustaining age.
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the last point that the right hon. Member made. I am planning an extensive discursion on his wider point about investment in equities versus gilts shortly, so I ask him to bear with me, but it is an important point to raise. We may not agree on it, but it is important to make sure that we have aired it properly.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) started his speech with a powerful story about his father, which I am sure will have resonated with many hon. Members. The point he made actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself aims to drive. That may not have been the intention of the hon. Member’s argument, but that is the point it makes. It also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way to make sure that we support everybody. We should allow people to make their own choices while ensuring that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement.
The hon. Member for Torbay also talked about mandation. I am not going to lie; his words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. He said that what is being proposed in the Bill is anathema to him. In that case, he is will be absolutely horrified to read the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems’ attempt to sit on a fence, and then fall off it.
More importantly, and usefully, the hon. Member for Torbay raised the case of AEAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument that he made. That particular case and the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and the PPF are exactly why this Government have acted in a way that previous Governments, including the coalition Government, chose not to act.
That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who also touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre-1997 indexation insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation. I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis. I have met many of the pensioners who have been affected; I have gone out of my way to meet them locally and nationally, along with many other MPs. All of us would feel the same in their situation.
I am less pessimistic than the hon. Member and, specifically, I think that he underestimates the role of trustees. He is right to say that there is nothing in the Bill that gives trustees the power to override employers—that is true. What is does do is give trustees a veto over any release of surplus. Trustees who want to put at the top of their priorities progress on discretionary pre-1997 indexation in those schemes but who have not done so will now have the potential to do so under this Bill. I recognise the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I think he underestimates the change that the Bill can bring to some schemes. It is important to remember that there are some schemes that are not paying pre-1997 indexation that are not in surplus, but I absolutely recognise that those are different situations.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
In my speech I asked the Minister a very specific question: whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal. I wonder if he might consider that.
Torsten Bell
I am not going to commit from the Dispatch Box to writing 50 letters, but I will happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always do.
Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I was going to welcome his speech, but unfortunately he spent most of his remarks praising the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, showing both questionable judgment and—[Laughter.] Obviously I am joking; it is some of the finest hair in Parliament, as we all appreciate. When he got passed praising the hon. Member’s hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. It is an important one to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. He rightly made the case that the priority should be making private pensions better. That is what we should be focused on, and that is what we need to see.
That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) did not quite touch on. She was focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas we want to be able to level up and make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones who are invested in our defined-contribution system, can be confident that it is delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree on that.
That is why the Bill is increasing the returns that are available within the defined-contribution system. It is also why we have the Pensions Commission, which I think is part of the cross-party consensus that we should look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century and return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle earners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if that is not of huge relevance to this Bill. If we are honest, the biggest betrayal of today’s pensioners, not tomorrow’s pensioners, is the state of our NHS, and that is what the Government are in the business of turning around. We debate in this House the tax rises that the Conservatives would not like to see, but it is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country.
I promised a discursion on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I particularly liked his opening point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we all plan to draw our pensions—if we are not already doing so—for as long as we possibly can.
Torsten Bell
There are Members of this House who are drawing several pensions, and they are to be encouraged to do so, working past the state pension age and contributing with their valuable expertise.
The right hon. Member then focused on how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in investment behaviours. We have discussed that on a number of occasions, and it is important to distinguish between a number of points. The regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government, which, as he said, were motivated by good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme members, introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point—that will have had an effect over time. When we look at the defined-benefit market—the biggest by asset values at the moment—it is important to recognise that that is not what is driving it today. What is driving it is the maturity of defined-benefit schemes and the fact that the vast majority of them are closed, so they are investing in a different way, and they would not want to be as exposed to equities as I am sure he is.
The question is therefore about the defined-contribution market, which is the future of not the entirety of our pension system but the majority of it. There the story is not the same: none of the regulations that flow from the 1990s Acts relate to the defined-contribution system today. That is why it is important to have had the debates we were able to have—until we heard recently some of the slightly over-the-top views of Conservative Front-Bench Members—about what would be the right thing in savers’ interests. The right hon. Member is absolutely right that this debate is about what is the right investment strategy for savers’ interests for the longer term. I therefore completely endorse what he said on that.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the Minister for his words; it seems that we rather agree. I agree with him that the problem with the defined-benefits system is that it is addressing—let us be frank—an ageing demographic. There is, however, a challenge: because of those changes and the influence that has had on defined benefits, there has also been some influence—I would not overstate it—in the culture that has affected defined contributions, which are therefore overly bond asset-heavy, if you see what I mean, in comparison to Australian and Canadian markets. That is not to the degree that I was talking about earlier of 60%—clearly, that is different—but it does mean that we have got a pensions economy more geared to an ageing demographic and then over-geared in other areas to follow the lead of the defined benefits. That means we see that that removing or strangling, if you like, of live money—turning live money into dead money—which is a net burden on the whole economy. I appreciate that it is not quite as black-and-white as I have painted it, but it is a challenge that is affecting the entire economy.
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s focus on the generational challenges, but I have a slightly different view on what the biggest challenge is. The biggest issue for younger generations is if they do not have faith in a pensions system because they do not believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes. That is the most important thing. That is why this Bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, and it is also why the Pensions Commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures. I think that will help with some of the issues he raised.
I agree a bit less with the right hon. Member on the defined-contribution side. What stands out in the defined-contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities—we see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined-contribution systems—and more the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But there is a question about whether, if we do not have what we are trying to put in place with default pensions, we see some people in defined-contribution pensions lifestyling down, which means moving cash from equities into bonds.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the Minister, because this is actually becoming a debate in the Chamber, which is so rare. The Minister is absolutely right, but the reason why I link the two is that the nature of defined-benefit removing assets from UK equity markets has led to much slower growth in the UK stock exchange. That means that the levels of return for UK equities are lower, so defined-contribution trustees do not invest so heavily in shares. We then have a knock-on effect: when pensions need to have UK asset allocations—they want to have their savings in pounds, for understandable reasons—they cannot get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, so they end up being tied into Government bonds. We therefore get that draw in a slightly different way.
Torsten Bell
Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises.
I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [Interruption.] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words.
There are just two problems with those words. First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Minister, you are making a very passionate speech, but you said “you” and I do not think I was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point.
Torsten Bell
As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time.
The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that
“the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.]
Well, that was nice.
Torsten Bell
No, we have got some more. That was before Conservative Front-Bench Members—then in a less bonkers phase of life—nodded through the Bill, which they now claim is some kind of end-of-days Armageddon. Let us be reasonable.
Torsten Bell
No, I am going to finish.
Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that
“there is a lot in it that we do welcome”,
as it will
“help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.”
She went on,
“so we will not be voting against the Bill”—[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.]
We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my
“effort to hold back from mandation”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.]
What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister gave a very passionate speech, but when one mentions colleagues in the Chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has happened.
Torsten Bell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The appropriate thing to do will be to drop him a note very quickly.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Torsten Bell.)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, I understand that the Minister for Pensions made specific reference to me. I was elsewhere at the Treasury Committee, but I am told that he referred to a Westminster Hall debate on 25 November, and depicted me as arguing for the mandation of pension investments. In that debate, I explicitly said that mandation would be an “overreach”. I went on to say:
“I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 122WH.]
I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I could avoid being inadvertently misquoted by the Minister in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches in the Chamber—if only we were. However, the Minister is in his place and will have heard what the right hon. Member has said. If an error has been made, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.
Torsten Bell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the Back-Bench Member and the Minister have put their points on the record.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.
That Torsten Bell, Gen Kitchen, Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Mr Will Forster be members of the Committee;
That Torsten Bell be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 4)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provision shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 9 March 2026 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 3)):
Consideration of Lords Message on 15 April 2026
The Lords Amendments and Reasons shall be considered in the following order: 17B, 38, 41B, 102, 106 and 105B.
Question agreed to.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 144 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 259 / Noes: 136 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 139 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 38 and 105 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 9
Sibling contact with children in care
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.
Olivia Bailey
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school, drive high and rising standards in our schools, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. This Labour Government are ambitious for every single child in this country. This Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and make our children safer, both in and out of school, online and offline.
Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, both in the Commons and the Lords. In response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two Government amendments made in the House of Lords.
Government amendment 17B, on sibling contact, strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings. It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I also thank others who have campaigned on the issue, including Baroness Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely important topic.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome Government amendment 17B, which strengthens obligations to support sibling contact for children who are looked after. As the Minister knows, this is often the most important relationship that those children have. I pay tribute to the Family Rights Group and Become, as well as the campaigners she mentioned, for their important work in this area. The Education Committee recommended that the Government collect data on sibling separation in the care system in order to drive improvements in this area. As part of the implementation of amendment 17B, will the Minister commit to data collection, so that we can be certain that this measure is having the intended effect?
Olivia Bailey
I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to other campaigners, including Become. On her point about data collection, my the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is sitting next to me, is happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As well as being a member of the Education Committee, which has done sterling work on this point, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on human rights in the care system. We held a powerful roundtable with care-experienced young people, and that point was powerfully made to us. We have not yet reached the end of our inquiry and do not yet have recommendations, but I want to put on record my gratitude to those young people for sharing their experiences, and to the Government for making this really important change; I know that it will make so many lives better.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his important work, both on the Education Committee and for his constituents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet the Chair of the Committee soon, and we commit to working with it.
Let me turn to Government amendment 105B, on allergies in schools. I thank everybody who has worked so hard campaigning on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and other Members from both Houses. I particularly thank the fantastic Helen Blythe, the Benedict Blythe Foundation, and the wide range of allergy safety charities that have engaged with the Government on this matter.
As I promised when the Bill was last before this House, we have introduced a Government amendment to place allergy safety on a statutory footing for all schools. It requires all schools to have allergy safety policies, to review them regularly, and to publicise and publish them. Schools must have regard to the statutory guidance, which we have co-produced with expert stakeholders. Through regulations, we will put in place duties covering the content of allergy safety policies, stocking adrenalin devices, securing allergy awareness training, and incident reporting. Benedict’s law, named in memory of Helen Blythe’s son Benedict, is intended to ensure that every child with allergies can attend school safely.
Let me turn to Lords amendments 38 and 106, which relate to social media and phones in schools. Protecting children online is a priority for this Government, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have made it clear that it is a matter of how, not if, the Government will act to deliver further protections for children and young people.
Whereas the amendment proposed in the House of Lords is narrow, our consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of services and features. It will also allow us to consider different views on the way forward. It is crucial that we do not pre-empt the Government’s consultation, which will close next month.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the consultation that the Minister is holding on this important issue. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Education Committee—that seems to be something we should mention—and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Will she ensure that as this consultation progresses, the voices of young carers are heard? That is really important.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his work supporting young carers. I can give him that promise, and I am happy to arrange any meetings that he would like with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The Government amendments to the Bill will allow us to act quickly and respond directly to the consultation. There will not be endless rounds of consultation; the Government will act. We have listened to the concerns raised in both Houses regarding a desire for swift action, a more specific power and appropriate scrutiny.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Will the Minister confirm that the consultation is targeted at young people, parents and consumers of social media, and that the Government will not take input from social media companies?
Olivia Bailey
I can confirm that the consultation is targeted widely, at everybody with an interest in, or affected by, this issue. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail, setting out how the consultation is taking place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Olivia Bailey
I will make some progress, if hon. Members do not mind. I am happy to come back to them in a bit.
We have tabled an amendment in lieu that commits the Secretary of State to reporting to Parliament on progress within six months of the Bill passing. We will also share future draft regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023 with relevant Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople prior to laying those regulations before the House. Finally, we have made several amendments to our power, which specify how it will be used; for example, they stipulate that it can be exercised only to protect children from harms. The Government are committed to taking swift action to protect children online.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister has said that she wishes to take swift action. Surely the swiftest action she could take is to use this Bill to ban smartphones from schools, and to ban children under 16 from using social media. What extra information does she need to take those steps?
Olivia Bailey
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will address smartphones in schools in a moment. Our consultation allows us to act at real speed. Through the additions we are making to the Bill today, we are committing to report back to the House within six months, if we have not acted before then. The range of options that we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options in the amendments from the other place that we are debating. The consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical ones, such as addictive design.
Olivia Bailey
I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.
I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.
Olivia Bailey
I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.
I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.
Olivia Bailey
We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided, and will keep that guidance under review. As the legislation requires, we will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of that review.
Olivia Bailey
I am just concluding this section of my remarks, but the right hon. Member is very persistent.
I have previously been clear on our concerns about a cost cap. A numerical limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.
Graham Stuart
I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.
Olivia Bailey
The right hon. Gentleman’s opinion on the quality of the argument I have made is his opinion, and I happen to disagree with it.
Turning to Lords amendment 102, we have already committed to tighter regulations to make it clear that school quality and parental choice will be central to decisions on published admission numbers. Our amendment in lieu reflects that and will help ensure that decisions on PAN give parents a choice of high-quality school places close to home. In this age of declining rolls, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I know the Minister wants the best for children and is working hard to achieve that goal, but the Government’s guidance makes it clear that non-statutory guidance is not to be
“taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation.”
The fact is that the evidence is damning about smartphone usage and children. Why will she therefore not take the step now and support a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools?
Olivia Bailey
I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that on this point our objectives are the same. Phones should not be in schools at any point during the day from start to finish. I say in all good faith that I have looked at this issue—
Several hon. Members rose—
Olivia Bailey
I am in the middle of responding to the previous intervention; Members might just want to wait one moment. In all good faith, I have looked in great detail at the problem with why these policies in schools were not being enforced properly. It was a question of weak guidance, and the schools therefore not enforcing that guidance properly. Ofsted is now enforcing that, and teams of people are supporting schools to implement it. I have been clear that if the consultation says that a statutory ban is the silver bullet that will solve the problem, then of course we will do it, but in my honest view, we have already solved the problem of banning phones in schools.
Olivia Bailey
I will make some progress.
This Bill is something that only a Labour Government—[Interruption.] I will give way because the right hon. Gentleman is looking so aggrieved.
Damian Hinds
I think I just heard the Minister say, “We have already solved this problem.” I do not know if any other colleagues heard that. She said that she has written to every headteacher in the country, and it is absolutely the right thing to be in contact with them. Has she heard back from any headteachers or headteacher representative bodies, who say that this ban would be so much more straightforward if it were written into law, because of the difficulties that arise with a minority of parents? Headteachers say how much easier it would be for their school and their authority in their school if this ban were written into law.
Olivia Bailey
It seems to me that the Conservatives have just had their fingers in their ears and have been ignoring the wide range of steps that this Government have taken to address this issue. [Interruption.] We have recently changed your weak guidance—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers have made it clear that not only Back Benchers but Ministers perhaps need to raise their game when they are thinking about the courtesies of this Chamber.
Olivia Bailey
I sincerely apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Opposition. I was simply trying to point out that we have taken every step necessary to solve the problem of why phone bans were not being enforced properly in schools. I have been clear that should the consultation tell us that this guidance must be on a statutory footing, we will proceed on that basis, because our objective is the same: there should be no phones in schools from the start until the end of the day. I share that objective.
This Bill is something that only a Labour Government could deliver—a Bill that will break the link between background and success, a Bill that will provide opportunity for every child in this country and a Bill that will lift thousands of children out of poverty. I urge Members across the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and get this vital Bill on to the statute book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House.
That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Laura Trott
As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The evidence is still more profound, is it not? Screen time is now a profound problem across the board. This is not just about phones; it is about all kinds of devices. We now know not only that it affects children’s confidence in communicating, but that their cerebral capacity is being altered over time.
I hope that during the consultation the Government will look more broadly at the issue of screen time, because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), many parents are yet to understand this as clearly as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State most certainly does—and the Minister is gradually coming to terms with it. I hope that the Government will seize the initiative, and send the very clear message from this place that children and screen time are not happy bedfellows and we really must return to a more traditional way of bringing up the next generation.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is correct. We are involved in a profound battle for childhood and against the screens. The Government have taken some steps in the right direction—their recent guidance on under-fives and screens was very good—but they need to finish the job. They need to get smartphones out of schools, and they need to ban children from social media. It is the right thing to do, it is what the evidence shows, and it really will make a difference.
Many senior figures in technology companies do not allow their own children access to the very platforms from which they profit. They know what we know: it is not safe. The children will always try to be on the sites for longer, and the social media companies will give them more and more addictive content to look at. Nothing will change unless we act here in the House. A jury has examined the evidence and reached its verdict. The question before us today is whether the Labour party will have the courage to do the same, and vote to protect our children.
If Labour Members will not listen to me, I ask them to listen to the families who are here today—parents who have lost their children because of social media. They show unimaginable courage every single day. They are not fighting for their own children—tragically, it is too late for that—but they are fighting so that this does not happen to anyone else’s children. I am in awe of their strength. Their bravery is why I will keep fighting for change. I wish that they did not have to be here, but they are, and I am here for them.
I am here for Ellen. This week marks four years since she lost her son Jools, and she continues her brave campaign so that no other family has to endure what she has endured. She believes that he died after attempting a TikTok blackout challenge. I am here for Lisa, whose son Isaac died at the age of just 13. She believes that he, too, was attempting a TikTok challenge. I am here for Mariano, whose daughter Mia took her own life at 14 after sustained online bullying. And I am here for George, whose son Christopher was 15 when he died, just 50 days after he began receiving disturbing messages online. He was groomed by individuals posing as children.
Those are just some of the dozen or so parents in the Gallery today. Every one of them has lost a child prematurely due to social media. Every month, the group grows. This does not just happen to other people’s children; it can happen to any of our children. It must stop, and we have the power to stop it today. I urge Labour Members to ask themselves why they are still refusing to act.
Yesterday I was briefed by a former senior police officer about the scale of abuse taking place on platforms such as TikTok. He described the sheer volume of exploitation affecting UK schoolchildren. Young girls are being encouraged to commercialise their bodies and are receiving digital gifts through features such as TikTok rewards. These rewards allow viewers to send virtual items during livestreams that can later be converted into real money. In practice, this creates a financial incentive for children to post increasingly provocative material in order to attract attention and income.
In 2024, a global study by Protect Children found that 32% of sex offenders reported using social media platforms to search for, view or share child sexual abuse material. A separate 2026 study, commissioned by Ofcom, found that nearly half of perpetrators first encountered such material unintentionally, often through social media or messaging platforms. That is why the Government’s consultation is so wrong-headed. I am not even joking when I say that their consultation cites TikTok as a benefit for children simply because they can post dance videos. What I have stated today obviously renders that absurd, given the harm caused, but even posting a dance video is very dangerous. Let me explain why, as the Government clearly do not understand.
When young girls post dance videos, they learn that the way they get approval is not internally, but externally. Children quickly learn that “likes” equal approval. They learn that attention brings status. And too often, they discover that sexualised content attracts the most attention of all. That reshapes how young people see themselves and their value. If children spend significant time posting dance videos on social media, especially from a young age, they begin to depend too heavily on the opinions of others, rather than their own judgment. Their confidence declines, and seeking approval becomes habitual.
Yesterday I spoke to the brilliant Dr Davies, who leads the charity Papaya Talks. She explained how, over time, seeking external approval can reduce self-esteem and distort how young people understand themselves and their worth. It is not just about posting dance videos, and to casually put that as a benefit in the consultation means that the Government do not understand what they are dealing with.
I welcome Lords amendment 17B and the Government providing some movement through their amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 102 and 106. The introduction of PAN is a welcome step, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, I remain concerned that the adjudicator may only be required to have regard to parental preference and the quality of education provided, which does not guarantee that local authorities will not shrink good schools. The Government need to strengthen this provision and put the matter beyond doubt.
Turning to phones in schools, Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106B states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance”.
The Minister outlined the plethora of actions the Government are taking, but I ask them, for the love of God, to put the guidance on to a statutory footing. They really are taking all possible steps not to agree with us, but the answer is right in front of them.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is making the profound point—and this should concern every Member of this House across the normal party divides—that the abnormal is becoming routine. Growing up has never been easy and moving from childhood to adulthood is always a challenge, but when someone’s sense of what is normal is altered beyond recognition, it becomes impossible to navigate the vicissitudes that are an inevitable part of maturing, and that is where we are. This House took 25 years to regulate the internet at all—far too long—over successive Governments, but now the whole House can come together to protect our children from this menace.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I have said, we are in a fight for childhood, and I will keep fighting until the Government offer a ban on social media in this Bill and give us a timeframe by which they are going to do it.
I am not giving up, and the parents in the Gallery will not give up either. In the immortal words of Taylor Swift:
“You want a fight? You found it”.
Labour MPs will find that, with parents, teachers and doctors, we have the place surrounded, and we will not give up, because children deserve better.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation, by extending the requirement for a looked-after child’s reasonable contact with their parents to contact with their siblings or half-siblings. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters—so many letters. Every single time, I was advised that there was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed—until now. Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings and denies them contact with each other.
When I heard my noble Friends in the other place carry unopposed Lords amendment 17B—the same amendment that I moved in 2016—I was for once completely lost for words. This may seem like a very small change to legislation, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children, including children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend.
Like everything that happens in this place, it was not a solo endeavour. If the Chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all the MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change; my right hon. and hon. Friends in our Education team; Cathy Ashley and the team at the Family Rights Group who, way back, helped me craft the amendment; and my friend the broadcaster and journalist Ashley John-Baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system, in which he grew up never knowing that he had siblings, to help press for this change.
That leads me to who I want to thank most of all: the children I worked with in my former career. I promised them that if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.
Graham Stuart
I just want to say thank you to the hon. Lady for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by persisting, keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough.
Emma Lewell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention—possibly one of the nicest interventions I have ever had in this place.
I hope that if those children I worked with are listening now, they will know that I have honoured my word to them. It may have taken me a decade and they will now be adults, but I sincerely hope they know that this is for them and it is they who have made sure that other little ones will never ever have to go through what they had to go through.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am very pleased that we have proper time for debate today. I record my dismay that our last debate on this Bill was cut so short, when we had so many important amendments to consider. We spent more time walking through the voting Lobby than scrutinising the provisions of law that we are sent here to make.
I want to start by talking about children in care. As we have just heard, their relationships with siblings can be the most important connections they have. Too often, those relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support them effectively. To that end, I would also like to commend the work of the charities Become and the Family Rights Group, who have sought to keep siblings connected. It is for this reason that I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 17.
The Minister said that it is a travesty that siblings have been separated. I gently say that it was her and her colleagues who made Labour MPs oppose the Lords amendment from my noble Friend Baroness Tyler in the last round of ping-pong. I am glad the Government have had a change of heart, accepted her approach and put forward their amendment in lieu. I congratulate and thank my noble Friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She has been championing this issue for many, many years and I recognise her tireless work. I also recognise the tireless work of the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who, as we have just heard, has also been working so hard on this issue.
The amendment addresses a critical oversight in our current regulations, ensuring that the bond between siblings is not severed simply because their care status differs. These relationships are often the only constant in a child’s life. Protecting them provides a vital anchor of stability amid the profound upheaval of new care arrangements.
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 106 requires headteachers only to “have regard for” guidance on smartphones in schools, rather than mandating the existing guidance. Young people themselves say that they want a break from the stress of social media at school. We all know the impact that our phones have on our concentration and focus. If Ministers and other hon. Members in this House cannot resist the temptation to look at their smartphones during a debate like this, how on earth do they expect a 14-year-old to ignore a TikTok notification in a double science lesson? According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, a quarter of children’s notifications go off during the day. I am deeply alarmed that our children’s educational attainment should be hindered by an issue that is so simple to solve. I appreciate the Minister’s comments about guidance and asking Ofsted to look at it. After they made the announcement that they would include the issue in Ofsted inspections, I met a group of headteachers from my constituency. They said to me, “This is yet another thing you are piling on to the Ofsted inspection. Please can you ask Ministers to just get on and make this law?”
Where schools have managed to ban phones during the school day, they have seen a real transformation in pupils, going from being glued to screens to chatting and playing Uno at break times. Headteachers report significant reductions in incidents of low-level disruptive behaviour and lower in-school truancy, and children and teachers are reporting being happier in school.
However, many headteachers are still battling to get their schools to that place. Our headteachers need proper support to do right by our children, where they are challenged by parents who want still to be able to reach their children even during the course of the school day, to ensure that children have a healthy and safe education free from distraction.
I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State if she is listening, to make this guidance statutory. Will the Minister support schools with the tools and funding to manage this transition to ensure that every classroom is a space where children can focus, learn and thrive, smartphone free, unless they have a need for a device for medical reasons, for special educational needs or because they are young carers?
It is a strange irony that the Government demand endless evidence before reining in big tech yet refuse a single review of their branded school uniform policy. By rejecting Lords amendment 41B to review the effectiveness of the Government’s cap on the number of branded school uniform items, as opposed to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a price cap, Ministers are effectively asking the British public to trust that they have exactly the right answer. The amendment is a significant concession on what we have previously proposed. It merely asks for a review of the policy after 12 months. We have a shared goal on both sides of the House to tackle the cost of living for hard-pressed families, but Ministers seem to lack the humility to admit that there is a chance that their policy prescription to bring down the cost of uniforms may be wrong. The Schoolwear Association has said that 61% of its members may increase prices based on the item cap.
The Government were forced to U-turn on winter fuel allowance for pensioners and on welfare reform for those in receipt of benefits. Why will they not accept the offer of an off-ramp to potentially prevent another forced U-turn somewhere down the line? What do they fear about testing their policy in a year’s time, just in case the uniform suppliers hike their prices in response to this policy, as the industry has repeatedly warned and as a basic understanding of market forces would suggest? The Government cite their manifesto as though it were a shield against better Liberal Democrat ideas, but a manifesto commitment is only as good as its delivery. Parents want action that will actually lower their bills. If the Government are so sure they have got it right, they have nothing to fear from a 12-month review.
On the theme of supporting families, I shall speak to Lords amendment 38. I first offer my belated congratulations to the Government on accepting the merits of part of the Liberal Democrat position in their amendment. Having spent a year opposing our efforts to ban big tech from collecting the data of under-16s, it is heartening to see Ministers finally recognise that we can no longer allow social media giants to treat our children’s personal data as a commodity to be harvested for profit. It is also welcome that the Government have moved towards the Liberal Democrat position of age ratings for social media, by accepting that children of different ages will be affected by the online world in different ways. But the Government have still not gone far enough. Their amendment says only that they “may” make provisions to tackle these issues, not that they will.
The Government’s amendment also remains silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the infinite scroll and the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government fail to recognise that this amendment will leave parents, families, children and indeed the Government fighting against big tech with one arm tied behind their back. The recent US court cases against Meta and YouTube confirm what we already knew. Those apps are designed to keep our children hooked.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. She is right that age classifications that tackle the social media companies, rather than going after children and their rights, are what matters. Recent research by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—on seven internet activities by 15-year-olds in 47 countries found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower at higher rates of social media use by 15-year-olds. Does that not make acting on this issue now even more urgent?
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that we have to act, and we have to act now. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not committing to doing something soon.
Going back to the US court cases, one document revealed that Meta executives claimed:
“If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”
That is my 11-year-old daughter that Meta is talking about. Another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times more likely to keep coming back to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments and support the live consultation on these matters. Social media has unfortunately become central to childhood, and the negatives are massively outweighing any positives.
Even when social media is at its most benign, children are spending 40, 50 or maybe 60 hours a week on it. It is intentionally addictive—of course, since we last debated these amendments, a US court has made that determination—and affecting children’s sleep, concentration and wellbeing. Of course, it is much worse than that, with relentless bullying; the promotion of self-harm, eating disorders and suicide; sextortion; misinformation and disinformation; envy and comparison; as well as a significant dose of misogyny and porn. It is therefore not a surprise that there has been a 118% rise in children and young people accessing mental health services in England just in the last decade.
In all child-related matters, we need to listen to the voice of the child. In a recent Harris poll, 39% of Gen Z respondents said they wished that social media had never been invented. There is a significant rise in three to five-year-olds using social media, with 37% doing so, according to Ofcom.
A group called Big Tech’s Little Victims, in association with the National Education Union, recently conducted a social media experiment. It created accounts for four fictional 13-year-olds, signed them up to the main platforms and had a researcher scroll the accounts for 30 minutes a day for a week. The results were staggering: those fictional 13-year-olds were receiving, on average, one piece of concerning content a minute. To reinforce the point, the group put together a reel of the worst bits so that I and other Members could see the racism, sexual violence and misogyny that children are witnessing. We will never stop violence against women and girls until we stop feeding this hate to our children.
Parents up and down the country are in the impossible position of exposing their children to that content or having their child be the one who is missing out. I therefore support the Government’s ambition to act. It is right that laws keep pace with technology; it is right that we consider whether stronger protections for under-16s are needed; it is right that phones should play no part in school life; and it is right that the Government ensure that any legislative changes are legally robust, compatible with existing law, and capable of standing up to scrutiny in the courts.
I welcome Government amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 38, which will require a statement on progress within six months if no regulations have been made. We need to get on with it. I urge everyone to complete the consultation and I urge the Government to act with haste following the consultation’s closure on 26 May.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive.
That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it.
We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.
Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with.
Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils. Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.
In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity.
I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect. If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.”
The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on. If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?
Graham Stuart
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area.
Helen Hayes
I believe that there is a consensus across this House, both about the harms of social media and smartphones for our young people and about the urgent need for action. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members but have heard no acknowledgment that, on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders—including bereaved parents—on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Government’s consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, to the Education Committee to undertake some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion. That will help the Government get to the right and effective approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it?
Graham Stuart
Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is.
Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution. If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.
Helen Hayes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday next week, which will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in the field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping the Government get to the right and implementable solutions during the consultation process. I encourage him to tune in to that.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this.
The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning.
We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I believe we are talking about two different things. On banning social media for under-16s, there is a complication there. We have seen what they have done in Australia, and what other countries are doing. We believe that our solution is the right one, because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform, every game and every piece of tech, but the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the Government to act on this; doing so would be simple, straightforward and quick. It could be done through this Bill, right now.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.
Iqbal Mohamed
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?
Graham Stuart
That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces.
The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.
Graham Stuart
I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.
Graham Stuart
Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice.
Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people.
The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate.
There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is making an informed speech. Would he agree that the priority for any Government, and any legislator, is to protect citizens from harm? This amendment would protect children from harm. The technical implementation—how we control access—should not be a consideration, given that harm. As he rightly said, that should be the responsibility of the platform owners, who have access to technology that they refuse to use.
Peter Prinsley
I agree that we must hold the tech companies to account; they are the ones in control of the situation.
The amendment proposes a higher standard—not simply “reasonable steps”, but highly effective age assurance, and that is meaningfully different. We have heard about movement internationally. France and Spain are taking similar steps, and others are following. We ought to be part of the broader shift in how Governments are approaching online safety for children. Also, this cannot just be about restrictions; of course, there is a role for education. Children need to understand the online environment that they are engaging with, particularly when it comes to the algorithms, data and content driven by artificial intelligence.
We have heard about the consultation, and I support it in principle, but the scale of the issue is already well evidenced. There is a question about what additional insights small trials would realistically add, given the body of research that already exists.
Damian Hinds
There are unanswered questions about definitions, what should be in and what should be out, and exactly where the boundary lines are. Parents sometimes talk about social media in a way that professionals might not; parents might exclude certain messaging apps, for example. There are questions to be resolved, but the Government consultation is not just about that; it is about the “whether”, as well as the “how”. By all means, let us consult to get those technical points right, so that the measures are bullet-proof and future-proof, but today is the day that we could say, like those other countries did, “We are doing this. We are going to protect our children—and yes, there is still work to be done on exactly how that will fall out.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Peter Prinsley
I understand exactly what the hon. Member says.
My position is this: I support the Government, and I support the Bill, but I think the House should take very seriously what the Lords have asked us to consider. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment as it stands, I believe there is a strong case for them to bring forward their own proposal to achieve the same outcome clearly and in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this is about setting the right boundaries for children in a digital world that is evolving quickly. There is a clear expectation, inside and outside this House, that we must act.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
As the mother of four teenage and young adult children, about 50% of my parenting involves placing limits on my children’s phones or devices to limit the time they spend on them. In so doing, I am, like so many parents in my Esher and Walton constituency and across the country, doing battle with a pernicious, invasive and overwhelming force, for which my kids are proxies and against which I can never win. That force has billions and billions of dollars, and the desire and capability to make content more and more addictive every day, so that children spend more time online. The result, as so many studies show, is a negative effect on our children’s wellbeing, mental and physical health, and attention in class and at home. Those tech companies and their algorithmic content are killing kids. It is a public health crisis, and unfortunately, the Government are moving far too slowly to deal with it.
My eldest child was born in the year Facebook began, so my children have spanned the whole Gen Z Instagram generation. My youngest child is part of the TikTok generation. For me, the battle gets harder with each child, but I count myself lucky for not having had an “iPad kid”—a child who receives a device around the age of two. Gen Z children use that pejorative term to refer to younger children who are glued to devices, have short attention spans and throw tantrums when screens are taken away—these are children of two years.
The curious thing about Gen Z and Gen Alpha children is that many of them will say that they wish there were more controls over their screen use and time. They find algorithmic content too much to deal with, and it is having a negative impact on their mental health—so the children are asking us to act too. This generation is growing up with more anxiety and more exposure to harm, and children are less attentive. Every single day it gets worse, so we need to act now.
I have received over 2,600 emails from parents in my constituency asking me to ban social media for under-16s and to address their use of smartphones. I have spoken to school heads about the effect of the technology on their pupils, and parents are overwhelmed and feel completely powerless. A University of Birmingham study has shown that teachers spend 100 hours a week trying to control smartphone use. Headteachers tell me that teachers are doing battle with children as well as with their parents. Children pick up their phones in class to answer calls from their parents. They say, “I have to answer this because my parents are calling me.” That is time away from classroom learning.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not meet those challenges. It gives the Secretary of State optional powers, which they may or may not use, to restrict access to certain online services, and asks only for a six-month progress update. There are no requirements to act, and no timeline for doing so. That is not decisive action; it is a license not to do very much. A delay is being justified through a consultation that is flawed, as many Members have pointed out, and there is a reliance on small-scale pilots when much larger studies already exists. It looks very much like the Government are unwilling to take on the tech giants.
Iqbal Mohamed
Earlier I asked the Minister whether tech giants and providers of social media have access to the consultation, and she will be writing to me with those details. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that those companies have billions of pounds of lobbying power, lots of bots and lots of volunteers who they could recruit to rig the consultation, and that is why they should not be allowed to participate?
Monica Harding
I absolutely agree. Tech companies have billions of pounds, and the consultation also asks children 62 questions. How on earth can a child whose attention has been taken by a phone answer 62 questions? Meanwhile, the world is moving faster than the Government. Even if people think that we should wait, watch and learn from Australia, as others have pointed out, in the United States they do things differently to us and sue. Juries in the United States returned landmark verdicts against Meta and Google. In New Mexico the case against Meta for misleading the public about the safety of its platform, and enabling child sexual exploitation through its design practices, resulted in a penalty that covered 75,000 separate violations of state law. In Los Angeles a jury found both Meta and Google liable for negligence and a failure to warn users about the dangers of their products, and a further 2,000 cases are pending in California alone.
Evidence in those cases included internal documents that were disclosed by the social media companies involved, explicitly acknowledging that their products are addictive, that addictive behaviours harm children’s mental health, and that the design features driving those behaviours—endless scrolling, autoplay, notifications, slot-machine tactics—were made not in spite of their damaging consequences, but precisely because of their addictive effects. That is outrageous, yet the Government are letting them get away with it every day.
What more evidence do the Government need before they act quickly? They are letting down our young people, and parents in my constituency of Esher and Walton are demanding action, not down the line but now. If children cannot resist this content, through no fault of their own, the Government must act for them so that they are not able to access it. Time is not on our side, so for once will the Government please act boldly and quickly, and use powers in the Bill to protect all our children?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised.
The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children.
That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.
Caroline Voaden
I have spoken to lots of headteachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. They say that if all the secondary schools in an area were to ban phones, children would not get smartphones at 11, when they transfer into year 7, and the age at which they would get a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents would not be under pressure to buy a smartphone for their children when they are 10 or 11, so we would be gaining two or three really valuable years, when those children would not own a smartphone. Banning smartphones is not just about having an impact on school hours; it is about gaining that precious time so that children get phones when they are older. I beg the Minister to listen to that point.
Aphra Brandreth
I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban.
Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do.
Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so.
Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My constituents George and Areti are in the Gallery. Their story is one that no parent should ever have to go through. Their 15-year-old son, Chrisopher, was an active and outgoing young man with a bright future ahead of him.
One night in January 2022, Christopher was in his room playing video games. He clicked on a pop-up link and was tricked into sharing personal information about himself and his family. Just moments later, he began to receive messages from an anonymous stranger, threatening to kill his family if he did not complete a series of challenges. Over the 50 harrowing days that followed, these sick challenges got worse and worse. Christopher felt that he was being watched constantly, and felt that he could not tell his mum or his dad what was going on, fearing for their safety. Tragically, the challenges reached such an unbearable level that sadly, in March 2022, Christopher took his own life.
Since meeting George and Areti for the first time this year, I have been taken aback by their resilience and determination to ensure that this can never happen again. Together, they have set up a charity that works to educate others about the dangers that exist for children online. The Christoforos Charity Foundation sets up and has been doing events and activities for kids where they are encouraged to leave their phones behind and enjoy real-life connections.
As George and Areti say, their son was murdered by social media. That is why we should act swiftly to protect children online. Will the Government stop all the reviews and get on and act now by banning phones in schools and bringing in an age restriction of 16 on social media to save lives today?
Iqbal Mohamed
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I rise to call on the Government to support Lords amendments 38 and 106, which would raise the age of access to harmful social media platforms to 16 and ban mobile phones from schools. A broad range of extremely well-informed speeches has already been made in the House, so I will focus on the recent and not-so-recent scientific research that shows the harms of mobile phones and social media in particular.
Social media and access to mobile phones for children reduce attention spans and weaken executive function. Screen time, especially from smartphones, fast-paced videos and multitasking apps, is linked to poorer executive functions, including sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and working memory. Neurocognitive explanations suggest that highly stimulating screens promote rapid attentional shifting, weakening a child’s ability to concentrate in less stimulating real-world environments such as classrooms.
Screen time also creates language issues and verbal delays in early childhood, infancy and toddlerhood. Studies reportedly show that higher screen exposure before the age of three is associated with smaller expressive vocabularies, delayed language milestones and reduced conversational turn-taking. That effect is largely explained by displacement. Screen time displaces direct adult-child verbal interaction, which is essential for language development. Importantly, passive consumption and videos and scrolling are significantly more harmful than interactive co-used media. That increases the demand on our education system to support the children who are behind in their development, so banning phones will not only protect children, but allow them to learn at the rate that human beings are able to learn.
Access to mobile phones and social media also alters brain development. MRI studies provide biological evidence supporting behavioural findings. Higher screen exposure in young children is associated with thinner cortical regions involved in language, attention and higher-order cognition, as well as altered maturation of visual and executive control networks, and reduced structural integrity in the frontal and temporal regions linked to self-regulation.
In our society, we have an increase in the number of children with neurodiverse conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of mobile phones and social media and fast, short-clip videos increases ADHD-like symptoms and attention dysregulation. Multiple longitudinal studies, including analyses of more than 10,000 children, link higher screen exposure to increased inattention, impulsivity and ADHD symptom severity.
Let me turn to the cognitive effects of screen multitasking in adolescence. Frequent mobile phone use, particularly media multitasking, is associated with lower working memory capacity, poorer sustained attention and reduced cognitive control efficiency. The scientific consensus shows that well-supported adverse cognitive effects from the use of mobile phones and social media include weaker attention and executive function, language delays in early childhood, reduced learning efficiency, ADHD-related symptoms and atypical brain development patterns.
Earlier in the week, I was in the Chamber for the Government’s statement on their intention to halve the use of knives in our society and among young people over the next 10 years. I welcome those kinds of approaches, which protect our children and wider society. We have heard about the recent court cases in the US, and we know from leaked internal tech company documents that the social media companies were fully aware of the harm they were causing. They were designing in the addictive nature of their platforms, and they know that children want to leave their platforms but feel unable to do so because of their addictive nature. I would class those companies as virtual drug dealers. When people—particularly children—are exposed to the platforms they are providing, they become addicted to those platforms and unable to wean themselves off them.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman speaks to the language delays that are created by these apps. Does he agree that the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system on top of reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system—which parents are already worried about—will create extra anxiety and extra pressures, and is going to store up problems for the future if they are not tackled now?
Iqbal Mohamed
I do agree with the hon. Member. I sympathise with the Government—there are huge pressures in all policy areas, particularly children’s services, education and healthcare, and now they have to deal with the tech giants. The Government introduced age-gating for pornographic sites so that people under the age of 18 could not access them. That was absolutely the right thing to do; despite the fact that there are workarounds and technical ways for people to bypass that age-gating, it does project the majority of children from exposure to pornography. Now, the Government must deal with the virtual drug dealers. They must implement laws to protect our children from the harms those companies cause, and must also introduce laws to obligate them to change and redesign their platforms in order to design out those harms.
Academic studies have found that 24% of suicides among 10 to 19-year-olds are linked to high-risk use of digital technology. Heartbreaking cases such as that of the 14-year-old Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life in 2017 and whose legacy lives on through the Molly Rose Foundation, have demonstrated that social media use is undoubtedly contributing to rising rates of self-harm among young people. This is not some future risk; it is a real and present harm. We do not need more consultation, delay or half-measures; we need this Government to insist on safety by design to protect children from exposure to damaging content and platforms, and not to implement anything that aims at damage limitation. We need this Government to listen to our citizens, not to the tech giants. As such, I once again join right hon. and hon. Friends and Members across the House in calling on the Government to commit to raising the age of access to social media to 16 and banning the use of all mobile phones in schools, rather than continuing to leave children exposed to systems that are causing irreversible and unnecessary harm.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he is trying his luck. However, it is worth reminding Members—everyone has been here for the best part of two years at a bare minimum—that the guidance is very clear that, if they wish to contribute to a debate, they are under an obligation, not a gentle request, to turn up in the Chamber for the start of the debate. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman was present, so I call the Minister.
Olivia Bailey
With the leave of the House, I thank all Members for the contributions they have made to today’s debate. It has been a really useful, wide-ranging conversation, and I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. Important contributions have been made about safety and opportunity for all of our children.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) made a powerful speech, and I join her in thanking Ashley John-Baptiste. My hon. Friend has truly honoured her word to the children she worked with.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made a wide-ranging speech, and in response to her points on uniforms, I repeat again that we will monitor the impact of the change and conduct a post-implementation review.
On the question of our intention to act on social media, let me be clear—I think I will be repeating this lots in the course of my summation this evening—that it is not a question of whether we will act, but how we act. The Government have been clear about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) is a passionate campaigner on tackling hate online, and he made a characteristically erudite speech. He demanded haste following our consultation, and I can give him that guarantee. We are clear that we will act swiftly following this consultation, which concludes in only a month’s time.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made an engaging speech, and both his speech and the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) reminded me of the broad consensus across this House about the need to act. However, he does not seem to accept the need to take the time necessary to get this right and to hear a wide range of perspectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) made compelling arguments about the dangers of the online world. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) reminded us of the challenge faced by parents when tackling these challenges—I identify with that—and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) made a powerful speech. I welcome George and Areti to the Gallery, and I thank them for their bravery and strength in campaigning in memory of their son, Christopher.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a wide-ranging speech, but he talked in particular about early childhood. I share his concerns. The research that the Department has published and the guidance we have recently published warn that too much time online and on screens can have a detrimental impact on key measures for our youngest children. That is why we have acted by issuing clear guidance to give parents the support they need to navigate that challenge.
Olivia Bailey
I will not, I am afraid.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made a moving speech that reminds us of the urgency of action. I, too, have met bereaved parents and those are the toughest meetings. I thank them for their bravery and courage. The question we have debated today is not whether we act, but how we act. I gently say to the right hon. Member that, instead of rushing to the narrow ban proposed by the other place, we need sufficient information. This Government are determined to take action to keep our children safe online, but we need to consider all perspectives and a much wider range of services and features.
I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions this evening. The Bill we have before us today will lift children out of poverty, break down the barriers to opportunity and tackle the cost of living for families. I urge Members across the House who share Labour’s ambitions for our children to support this landmark legislation.
Lords amendment 17B agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 38, but does not insist on its amendments 38A to 38D and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Olivia Bailey.)
Business without Debate
Baldies Field
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that Baldies Field—a green space adjacent to Hoon Avenue and Milehouse Lane—has been used by local people for generations, and is valued by residents as an accessible open space used for walking, recreation and wellbeing; further declares that proposals affecting the site have generated significant concern across the community and that residents have raised issues relating to traffic congestion in the surrounding area and have questioned how additional development could be accommodated safely within an already pressured road network; further declares that there are concerns about flooding and drainage in the area, including existing problems following heavy rainfall; further declares that questions remain about how further development would affect the local drainage system and whether the implications have been fully addressed; and further declares that the potential loss of Baldies Field itself is a major concern as, for many people nearby, it represents one of the few remaining accessible green spaces, relied upon by individuals and families for everyday recreation and for the mental and physical wellbeing that open spaces support.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Staffordshire County Council to ensure that the concerns that have been raised are listened to carefully, to ensure full transparency about the future of the site, and to take all possible steps to protect Baldies Field for the benefit of the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003185]
Regulation of the Marmalade Market
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
At the end of October 2013, I led a debate on the regulation of jam, which caused a bit of a stir. It rightly warned of the end of the British breakfast as we know it. Thirteen years later, I have returned to discuss marmalade.
Last July, a lady called Vivien Lloyd, who inspired the debate about jam, returned to see me at one of my constituency surgeries—hopefully, she is in the Public Gallery this evening. She told me of her alarm about the arrangements being made for marmalade. This debate is particularly timely. Members may have seen that “Marmalade Madness!” was the headline of the Daily Express just a few days ago. I wondered whether it had earned a double-page spread. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Great, isn’t it?
I understand that “Paddington: The Musical” won seven Olivier awards this weekend—Paddington is the most well-known lover of marmalade in sandwiches and enjoys stratospheric popularity—but Members and the Minister will be delighted to know that I will not be breaking into song. I looked forward to welcoming interventions from hon. Members on the “Conserve-ative” Benches, but they are not here. What a disappointment! Anyway, that pun does not work very well, not just because it is a particularly corny pun, but because marmalade is in fact a preserve rather than a conserve. That is exactly the issue I wish to speak about: the enormous inaccuracy in the classification of jams, spreads and, importantly, marmalade.
Stories explaining the origins of marmalade are full of inaccuracies. One account says that Mary, Queen of Scots, was ill and requested a remedy made of oranges and sugar. Her maid supposedly whispered, “Ma’am est malade”, leading to the name of the preserve. Another story credits marmalade to Dundee, where a ship full of oranges is supposed to have sunk in the port. Resourceful Dundonians supposedly devised a way of preserving the cargo to make it last. Unfortunately, both stories are untrue. Quince jams existed throughout Europe much earlier than the dates of those stories. The French and Portuguese took their word for quince jelly from the Greek “melimēlon”, meaning sweet apple.
It seems that that lack of care for heritage can still be seen in the approach that we take to regulating our marmalade market today. As a consequence, preservers and food retailers are selling marmalades that do not comply with regulations on total sugar and fruit content, as specified in the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003. Marmalade should be 60% sugar. There are rules for the percentage of a product’s total sugar content, and for marmalade it is 60% or more. The sugar content for reduced-sugar marmalade is anything from 25% to 50%. Statisticians and mathematicians among us will have noticed that that leaves products with a total sugar content of 50% to 59% completely uncategorised, and that loophole has been exploited by many marmalade manufacturers. However, recent regulatory changes shift the nature of the problem, and the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will come into effect in the next few months and make some welcome changes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I spoke to her this morning to ascertain her thoughts on this matter. We were brought up on marmalade back in Ballywalter. My mum made marmalade. She is now 94 and not making marmalade any more, but although I am no Paddington Bear, I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast. When I say that I enjoy it, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam. Does the hon. Lady agree that my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the same consideration as her constituents, and that labelling must reflect the hard-won distinction of marmalade, and not fruit jam or jam, just for the ease of the EU?
Tessa Munt
I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades.
While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display
“energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.”
Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations.
This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed.
The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product.
The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand.
Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I confess to the House that I prefer English strawberry jam to marmalade, but my wife is an assiduous and loyal orange marmalade fan—
Adam Jogee
It must be a Northern Irish thing. She often purchases marmalade at one of the excellent shops in Newcastle-under-Lyme. May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent and interesting speech, and on giving voice to the sweet, sweet tastes of Paddington Bear himself?
Tessa Munt
I am trying so hard to avoid more references to Paddington, but you are quite right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I made the point earlier in the debate. We have had a scattering of “yous” from Ministers, Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Hon. Members have been in this place for long enough to know that they must not do it and it will not be tolerated by the Chair.
Tessa Munt
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the commitment shown by the wife of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) to marmalade. The critical thing is that it is made from citrus. I have been to Fortnum & Mason—I will probably have to apologise to them tomorrow morning—and seen strawberry marmalade, pear marmalade and all sorts of other flavours. That is rubbish—there is no such thing.
Some manufacturers use the weight of sugar in the recipe to calculate the percentage of sugar instead of testing the end product in the jar with a refractometer. To summarise, consumers are getting a lower-quality, higher-sugar product that can be made more cheaply than proper marmalade, but can be disguised as the same thing. To avoid that, I ask the Minister to ensure that marmalades have total sugar content of 60% or above, as measured with a refractometer. That way, we can protect the heritage of British marmalade.
Another concern in the marmalade market is the definition of marmalade itself. That is being flaunted in cases where producers are developing creative new preserves. Only these additional ingredients can be used in true marmalade: spirits, wine, liqueur wine, nuts, aromatic herbs, spices, vanilla, vanilla extracts and vanilline. Every year, Penrith holds the world marmalade awards. Recent winners include Nordic fusion blackcurrant and vodka marmalade, coffee heaven marmalade and yuzu, passionfruit and apricot marmalade—I had to check what the last one was, as I had no idea.
Without clear and enforced regulation, those differences are obscured. Products that fall short of the standards are still presented to consumers as marmalade, trading on the reputation of a product that they do not in truth match. That is not innovation; it is misrepresentation.
Recent regulatory changes attempt to address that by tightening definitions. Marmalade will quite rightly be more clearly defined as a citrus product, and combinations of citrus with non-citrus ingredients will no longer be permitted to use the term. That is a welcome step towards greater clarity for consumers and towards protecting the integrity of the product itself. The vast majority of marmalades are already labelled as Seville marmalade or orange marmalade, but this measure would ensure that that applies to all marmalades.
Predictably, colleagues in the Conservative party and the Reform party have leapt on the bandwagon and claimed that, due to heavy-handed EU regulation, we may no longer call marmalade marmalade. While that claim is overstated, it reflects a misunderstanding of what is actually changing. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the banana-straightening nonsense spouted in the lead-up to the EU referendum in 2016. We are not losing the word “marmalade” but refining it.
The changes ensure that what is called marmalade is, in fact, made from citrus fruit. In a post-2016 referendum context—a post-Brexit context—that takes on an added significance and irony. We were told by some that we would now have the opportunity to define, protect and champion our own food standards, rooted in our own scientific and culinary heritage. There is a real risk that by drifting towards looser definitions adopted elsewhere, we could lose just over a century of British tradition.
Accurate regulation is not about pedantry; it is about protecting consumers and quality and maintaining trust. It is about ensuring that when something is labelled as marmalade, it meets the standards that generations of Britons would expect. If we fail to uphold those standards, we risk not just eroding a definition, but failing to preserve a meaningful part of our national food heritage.
These are my requests of the Minister. First, it is still unclear what will happen to the 50% to 59% sugar marmalades. Maybe we should have three categories: reduced sugar marmalade, which is 25% to 49% sugar; preserve, which is not marmalade but has 50% to 59% sugar; and marmalade, which has 60% sugar and above. Secondly, legislation should require that sugar content be measured with a refractometer. Thirdly, I request that we have a defined list of permitted additional marmalade ingredients, as I have mentioned, and that that should be enforced.
Fourthly, we have removed the requirement to label the sugar content, with an understanding that that will be expressed in the nutritional values information. That is doubly problematic for marmalade, because it is often made by artisan producers, who sometimes do not label their nutritional values, and, as I discussed in my speech, the 60% sugar content is so critical to producing something that is actually marmalade. My penultimate point is that legislation should require that, at a minimum, the sugar content is made clear, either as part of the nutritional values or just by having the sugar content on a separate label.
Finally, the new rules require that marmalade be labelled “citric marmalade” or “Seville orange marmalade.” That is fine, but it leaves the door open to so-called strawberry marmalade or raspberry marmalade. Can we ensure that the new legislation permits that only citrus fruits can precede the word “marmalade” on labels?
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and providing an opportunity for me to outline the regulation of the marmalade market. As Paddington Bear wisely reminds us:
“A wise bear always keeps a marmalade sandwich in his hat in case of emergency.”
As hon. Members may notice, I do not have a hat, and I hope that we do not have an emergency. I certainly do not have a sandwich, so I hope that we will not get into any sticky situations, although I thought that we were getting into some spicy situations when I was listening to the hon. Lady’s speech.
After the flurry of media stories over Easter about marmalade, this is a topical debate, but I think Paddington himself would be mildly exasperated by all the marmalade nonsense that has been spread around in the papers. In response, I want to reassure Members of the House that absolutely nothing will be changing about the composition of marmalade. Despite misinformation that has now spread far and wide, there is no requirement for retailers or producers to change an orange marmalade label to a citrus marmalade label; in fact, the orange marmalade that is sold in the Tea Room is able to be exported, and will still be able to be exported once these changes come into effect in the European Union.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, marmalade is often already labelled as orange marmalade on UK supermarket shelves. This is in compliance with EU rules past and present, and many British manufacturers already meet international labelling standards voluntarily so that their products can be sold overseas. After our new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, we will simply support that trade by cutting unnecessary red tape with our largest market; we will not be subverting the meaning or composition of marmalade. I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will welcome that news.
As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, marmalade is a product steeped in tradition and loved by millions at the breakfast table. It delivers a perfect blend of sweet and tangy fruit preserve, made from the juice and peel of citrus fruits simmered with sugar and water. The well-known version is made from bitter orange, most commonly using Seville oranges, but other citrus fruits such as lemons and limes make an equally delightful change and are becoming more popular. While the marmalade we know today is a symbol of British breakfasts, its origins stem from Portugal, where—as the hon. Lady said—it was made from quince and known as marmelada. It was then imported into England in the 16th century from Mediterranean countries. Modern marmalade has existed since the 1700s, when, in Scotland, water was added to make it less solid. It was the people of Scotland who then made marmalade a breakfast item, and the rest of Britain soon followed. Interestingly, the word “marmalade” in the English language comes from the French, which came from the Portuguese word “marmelada”. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it started with the Greek “melimilon”, which means sweet apple. As is the case in many such circumstances, marmalade is more international than I suspect many people who are using it as a symbol of UK patriotism understand.
Our current domestic rules for marmalade are regulated by the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003, which implemented the assimilated EU directive 2001/113/EC. Those rules help protect the quality and reputation of these important products and ensure that they meet consumer expectations. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, our domestic rules lay down compositional standards for jam, jelly, marmalade and other similar products, meaning that marmalade and jelly marmalade must contain a minimum amount of citrus fruit—200 grams per kilogram of finished product—of which a set amount, 75 grams, must come from the endocarp. For those who do not know what the endocarp is, it is the segments and pulp of a citrus fruit. As the hon. Lady also pointed out, the soluble solids are also set at a minimum level of 60%. Very few other ingredients are permitted, and only in restricted amounts—for example, no food colours are allowed. I understand that the hon. Lady is very familiar with these regulations, because she was particularly active when changes to the minimum levels of sugar in jams were proposed by the UK in 2013. Food policy is devolved in the UK, but those standards are similarly accepted and set across all the devolved Governments.
I am pleased to say that our domestic UK market for marmalade is buoyant—it is worth £67 million. Our leading UK brand, Robertson’s, delivered £9 million in sales in the last year, and Mackays—the fastest-growing marmalade brand—is now the UK’s second largest and Scotland’s No. 1, with 19% of market share in Scotland and 7.6% across the UK. These successful brands are excellent examples of products already referencing “orange marmalade” in the name. Marmalade is synonymous with Paddington. In fact, it was reported in 2014 that marmalade sales soared following the release of the “Paddington” movie—the so-called Paddington effect.
As promised in our manifesto, this Government are focused on resetting our relations with the European Union and our closest trading partners. We have agreed with the EU to establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary area. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met the French Agriculture Minister, Annie Genevard, she said that
“our friendship is built on co-operation, on mutual benefit and on a shared understanding that our security and prosperity are bound together”.
Alongside the Windsor framework, the SPS agreement will make moving goods easier, cheaper and more predictable. That is not just between the UK and the EU, but within the UK, too, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is about more than trade statistics. Short, regulated, high-standard supply chains between trusted neighbours are the foundation of resilient food security. We expect the agreement to cover the breakfast rules, to which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills referred in her contribution, including the jam and marmalade rules that I mentioned earlier.
Members may be aware that in 2024, the EU updated its rules on jams and made some minor changes to marmalade provisions. In the EU, consumers use both “jam” and “marmalade” to refer to jams made from non-citrus fruits. That is what they have always done. To accommodate different linguistic preferences, the EU adapted its rules to allow the equivalent to marmalade to be used for the term jam, where that was commonplace in a member state’s market. That is an option that a member state can choose to implement.
To avoid confusion with jam, the EU updated the reserved term of what we know here as marmalade to citrus marmalade, but producers can still simply name the flavour of the citrus fruit—orange marmalade or lemon and lime—and have consumers understand the precise nature of that product. The change will not apply to jelly marmalade, because there is no provision for jelly to be used interchangeably with marmalade, and so no confusion will arise. Aligning with the EU rules would mean that a small change to our marmalade description rules would have to be made, but as most jars already list the citrus used, the real-world impact would be minimal and consumers are unlikely to notice any difference.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister enormously for her explanation, and I am pleased that there is no intention to damage our trade in any way. We should boost trade of this well-known product with its unique qualities. My constituent would be particularly concerned about the level of sugar. I know I have asked some detailed questions—I have a copy of those questions for her, so if I may, I will hand those to her after this debate—but I am also particularly concerned about the proportion of sugar and those old Bristolian standards that were set over 100 years ago. I think the Minister’s view is the same.
Dame Angela Eagle
There have been no changes to the amount of sugar required for marmalade to be marmalade. If the hon. Member is hinting, as I think she might be, that various nefarious producers are masquerading non-marmalade as actual marmalade in the UK sense of the word, she should probably tell me, or at least tell local authority trading standards officers what is going on in the local area. They can then test to see what spreads or preserves are masquerading as marmalade. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, if she wants to hand me those questions.
The Government are committed to supporting and protecting traditional British food products such as marmalade. We do that through meaningful regulation, which supports high food standards and covers marmalade. As I hope the hon. Lady knows, given the SPS deal, we will be aligning with some of the EU’s rules—as, indeed, we already do in respect of EU retained law—which ought to make it easier for consumers to know what they are buying.
Question put and agreed to.
Unpublished Divisions: Crime and Policing Bill (14 April 2026)
Deferred Divisions
18:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 169 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 101 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 157 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 90 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 70 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 21 - Question accordingly agreed to.