House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin proceedings, I would like to note that today would have been the 100th birthday of Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth. She was the longest serving monarch this country has known; her reign saw unprecedented social, cultural and technological change. I pay tribute to her lifelong dedication to public service across the nations, overseas territories, Crown dependencies and the Commonwealth. Her devotion to duty remains an example to us all.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself entirely with your remarks about Her late Majesty?
The illicit finance summit will convene a coalition of international partners to scale up global enforcement against illicit finance. The summit will forge new partnerships to combat this shared threat, including illicit gold, money laundering in the property sector and the abuse of cryptoassets. The summit builds on our long-term commitment to this agenda, which is also shown in the 2025 UK anti-corruption strategy, and will complement our upcoming presidency of the Financial Action Task Force and other meetings.
Steff Aquarone
The summit is an opportunity for global action on the dirty money that flows through our financial systems, but the Foreign Secretary might rightly be asked by our international partners why overseas territories, who fly our flag and have our King as their Head of State, are preventing transparency and accountability for billions of pounds of illicit finance. Britain should be a world leader in tackling dirty money, but we have to get our house in order. Can the Minister assure the House and our international partners that he will bring overseas territories into line, and can he outline which of his powers he will use to do so?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member will know from my previous answers in this place how seriously I take this issue. Our commitment across the whole of our British family on these matters is very clear. I have been working closely with leaders of the overseas territories. We have seen some important progress from a number of them, but a number have not gone far enough; I have been very frank with them about that. We are working in partnership and providing technical advice and support, and I am very hopeful that we will achieve progress, particularly on legitimate interest access to beneficial registers of ownership.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK is a strong advocate for Interpol, recognising its critical function in supporting international law enforcement co-operation. We also support its ongoing reform programme to ensure there is no space for states to wilfully misuse its systems. The UK is represented at Interpol meetings, where the adequacy of its systems are discussed, and where we work with like-minded partners to enhance safeguards against abuse.
Richard Quigley
My constituent Ollie Bennett is wanted by Interpol for an alleged crime in Morocco three decades ago. Ollie has always maintained his innocence, and following a debate in this place, his crewmate was granted a full royal pardon for the same charges. Ollie, however, was not. In December, he was arrested and detained in a French police cell. Although he is now safely home, Ollie remains at risk of arrest each and every time he goes abroad. The irony is that the Moroccan authorities have never filed to extradite Ollie, yet a Moroccan-sponsored Interpol red notice for Ollie remains active. Will the Minister commit to meeting me, to ensure that Ollie can access the support that he needs to successfully appeal this red notice and finally end this 30-year-long groundhog day?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a committed advocate for his constituents. I would be very happy to meet him. As he will know, it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that the UK can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an Interpol alert in a public forum, to protect legitimate criminal justice inquiries, but I would be delighted to meet him.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Government recently informed me that they have received 64 category 2 type B extradition notices under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, of which 56 have been certified. Fewer than five of those come from Bangladesh. Can the Minister confirm how many of those relate to Members of this House, and whether there are any Interpol red notices that apply to Members of this House?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member will have heard the point I just made: it is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that we do not confirm Interpol notices in public.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Mr Speaker, may I join the tributes to Her late Majesty the Queen?
The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that over 2,500 Palestinians have been displaced by evictions, settler violence and demolitions this year alone. The UK is clear that Israeli illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Ruth Cadbury
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a full ban on all forms of trade and economic activity with those illegal settlements it long overdue, so that UK businesses, the public sector and charities are prevented from having any dealings with them?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that goods from illegal settlements are already not entitled to tariff preferences under the UK-Israel agreement, or the agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We are deeply concerned about reports of the decision to establish 34 new settlements, which would be added to the 68 settlements established since the Netanyahu Government came to office, and by the E1 settlement proposals, which are completely wrong. We will continue to work with our partners internationally to keep pressure on the Israeli Government on this issue.
Jeff Smith
Tariff preferences are one thing, and I know we cannot solve this problem alone, but we must do whatever we can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to stop. The Israeli Government are using the fog of war in Iran to make a Palestinian state unviable by an expansion of these settlements. What more do they have to do before we take action and ban settlement trade?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related to settler violence in the west bank, including measures against Cabinet members in their personal capacity, for their incitement of violence. We continue to look at the issue of sanctions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is fundamentally about the two-state solution, and it also risks undermining the Gaza peace process. The UK recognised the state of Palestine in September directly to support the viability of a two-state solution, and that continues to be at risk.
Mr Foster
After the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of in excess of 72,000 Palestinians, it is evident that the Israeli Government have turned their attention not only to Lebanon and Iran, but also to the west bank. In the west bank there are now daily reports of extreme violence and death, as well as the forceful eviction of Palestinians and the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. That is not only immoral, but yet further evidence of illegal Israeli Government-sponsored activity. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence in the west bank must stop immediately, as must the continued expansion of illegal settlements? Can she assure the House that despite the continuing conflicts in Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan, the Government are very much still focused on Gaza and the west bank?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of settler attacks has reached new heights, and there were more attacks in 2025 than in any year since the United Nations started recording such incidents more than 20 years ago. These attacks are horrendous, and they must stop. I have continued to raise the issue directly with the Israeli Government and our international partners. I also agree that in the end, all the work that is rightly being done to get progress and talks in Lebanon, and to find stability elsewhere in the middle east, will be badly undermined and will topple over if there is not action over the west bank.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Alongside what is happening on the west bank, in Lebanon, more than 1 million people have been forcibly displaced. The Guardian has reported that Israeli strikes on medical facilities in Nabatieh have killed health workers and ambulance crews; it notes that such incidents are becoming increasingly common. The UN is clear that the forced displacement of civilians and the targeting of civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law. What concrete measures are the UK Government putting in place to ensure that Israel ceases targeting civilian infrastructure, and stops forcible displacement in Lebanon?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we called for the ceasefire to be extended to Lebanon, and we condemned the escalation of Israeli airstrikes. We have also strongly condemned the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, which must stop. The issue exposed clearly at the beginning of this conflict was that Hezbollah was simply being a proxy for Iran, and is not in any way the representative of the Lebanese people. That is why talks between the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government are so important. The ceasefire is also incredibly important, but the huge displacement has devastating humanitarian consequences. That is why the UK is providing additional funding. People must be able to return safely to their homes in Lebanon.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Israel is acting illegally in supporting settlement expansion, in committing genocide in Gaza, and in attacking Lebanon and Iran. As the Secretary of State says, all those actions are flagrant violations of international law. She says that we must “put pressure” on Israel, but she is doing nothing. Time and again, she and her Ministers come to the Chamber to condemn, but take no action. When will she ban settlement trade? When will she stop all military co-operation with Israel, which is conducting these illegal attacks? When will she take action?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Government have put in place a series of measures that include introducing sanctions against Cabinet members in the Israeli Government. We have taken action around sanctions and arms sales. We have been maintaining continuous international pressure, working with allies, including around the negotiations on Lebanon. We have been pressing strongly for those negotiations, including directly with the Israeli Government, the Lebanese Government and the US Government, who have hosted those talks.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While atrocities are being committed against Palestinians in the west bank every single day, including the killing of hundreds and hundreds of children, it is disgusting to learn that British citizens are being offered Palestinian land, which they can purchase with virtually the same ease with which they do their everyday online shopping. Declassified UK has found that Israeli charity Shivat Zion is helping British citizens to move to illegal settlements. That breaks international law; and, to rub salt in the wound, British taxpayers are implicated, as the charity claims UK gift aid. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will look into the matter urgently and sanction any organisation, charity or otherwise, complicit in Israeli illegal land grabs?
Yvette Cooper
No one should be building illegal settlements on the west bank. It is essential that everyone abides by international law. We would expect any organisation in the UK and people living in the UK to abide by international law. We maintain our position that these settlements are illegal under international law.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The brutal suffering of Palestinians on the west bank remains unchallenged, and the Norwegian Refugee Council has now exposed that depraved sexual violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers is rampant against Palestinian women and girls. That is abhorrent. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what she is doing to take a firm stand against this cruelty, and will she commit to holding Israel to account for its heinous crimes against innocent Palestinians?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has raised with me the Norwegian Refugee Council report, and crimes around violence against women and girls. We have made tackling violence against women and girls, including those in conflict, a priority for the Foreign Office. We will take the matter immensely seriously. It is a crime, and the use of this violence as a weapon of war, which we have seen in conflicts across the world, is horrendous. We will continue to pursue the issue.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated that it is this Government’s stated objective and aim to recognise the Palestinian state, yet there are Members of the Israeli Government who say that it is their policy to expand illegal settlements in order to undermine a viable Palestinian state. Will she take firm action, ban the trade in settlement goods, and look at further sanctions on members of the Israeli Government and Members of the Knesset who promote these illegal policies?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady knows, we have already introduced three packages of sanctions related specifically to the settler violence on the west bank, including sanctions against Cabinet members. She will appreciate that we do not discuss sanctions in advance, but we continue to look at the issue of sanctions, and to take immensely seriously the expansion of settlements. The decision that the UK took in the autumn to recognise the state of Palestine depends on progress with the peace process in Gaza, and on ensuring that the west bank can be a viable part of a Palestinian state.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituents have shared with me their concern that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet is committing international war crimes in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, under the cover of the war that he launched with Donald Trump. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, the Government were right to finally recognise the state of Palestine, yet the actions of the Israeli Government on the west bank are explicitly intended to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. I am deeply concerned that what the Foreign Secretary has laid out today is not enough to show the Israeli Government that this Government are serious about prohibiting that. Let me ask again: will the Foreign Secretary do everything in her power to ban all settlement goods from the UK? Will she look again at measures to prohibit all UK individuals, businesses and banks from enabling illegal settlement?
Yvette Cooper
We expect UK organisations, charities, businesses and individuals to abide by international law. We also expect them to recognise that the settlements on the west bank are illegal; in particular, the E1 settlement is blatantly breaking the law. We expect UK organisations to abide by the law. There are already restrictions to prevent goods from illegal settlements benefiting from tariff preferences, and we take immensely seriously engagement with those illegal settlements by UK businesses.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have long been clear that the human rights situation in Iran is totally abhorrent. As I speak, the regime continues its repression, whether through executions, including of political prisoners and protesters, or through its ongoing internet blackout. January’s crackdown was an appalling reminder of this regime’s brutality. That is why we have sanctioned senior Iranian decision makers and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for their rights violations, and led the call for an urgent fact-finding mission at the Human Rights Council.
Mr Barros-Curtis
As was referenced, in January, the Islamic Republic unleashed hell on its own citizens, with a brutal crackdown on civilian protests that reportedly saw more than 30,000 people killed and thousands arrested. The subsequent UN Human Rights Council report found that many of Iran’s actions may amount to crimes against humanity. As these abuses continue with impunity, what steps are my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office taking to hold Iran to account and ensure that any negotiated settlement includes clear, enforceable commitments to end such atrocities?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I described our work on an Iran human rights resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, and on 12 January the Foreign Secretary spoke to her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Araghchi, setting out the UK’s total abhorrence of the killings, violence and repression, and urging the Iranian authorities to change course urgently. We continue to support negotiations between the US and Iran for a lasting resolution to this conflict.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Lindsay and Craig Foreman are incarcerated in Iran in brutal circumstances, and are being tortured in many ways. They are not my constituents, but their family approached me. May I be clear to the Government, and have them be clear to us in their response? Are the Government saying publicly that they are not spies, but innocent tourists? Will they formally declare the detention to be arbitrary? What else can they do to try to draw attention to the plight of these two innocent tourists?
Mr Falconer
I have been in regular contact with the family of the Foremans. This is a terrible case, and it is absolutely obvious that they are innocent tourists—that is clear to all concerned. We have made that point repeatedly to the Iranian regime, and I have raised it countless times with Iranian representatives, as the Foreign Secretary has done with her counterparts. We will continue to pursue this case; it is an injustice.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The barbaric regime in Tehran has murdered tens of thousands of its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for appalling antisemitism, and for spying on the British Jewish community. Why did the Government not stop Iran from being appointed to prominent positions in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, as the United States did? If Iran is found to be behind the disgusting attacks on Jewish sites in recent weeks in London, will the Government move forward with the proscription of the IRGC, and act against any financial institutions in the UK that are involved in funding state-sponsored terrorist activity in the UK?
Mr Falconer
As I understand it, the United Nations appointment to which the right hon. Lady refers was a decision of the Asia-Pacific committee—it was not a decision in which His Majesty’s Government had any role—and was subject to an automaticity process, rather than a vote. We did not have an option to block that appointment, although the Foreign Secretary did raise her concerns about it at the United Nations.
The right hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the malign role that Iran plays, not just domestically—as I described to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis)—but internationally. As has been said in this House before, Iran has continued to try to threaten communities in the UK, particularly British Jews. I have said to the Iranian ambassador here, in no uncertain terms, that if British Jews are ever found to have been harmed because of the actions of the Iranian regime, we would treat that with the utmost seriousness, as it deserves. We have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC, we have imposed more than 550 sanctions, and we have very capable security services in this country. When the Iranians seek to act in the UK, we do find them.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I recently visited Ukraine again—Lviv and Kyiv—and saw again the brutal impacts of Russia’s illegal war on the civilians and, in particular, the children of Ukraine. That is exactly why we are determined to clamp down on the individuals and companies who are supporting Russia’s war on Ukraine and the sources of revenue for that war. We have imposed over 1,200 designations against Russia, including 300 new sanctions in February. We have led international efforts to disrupt the shadow fleet, sanctioning almost 600 vessels, and collectively our efforts with other countries have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion since its full-scale invasion four years ago.
Chris Coghlan
On Friday the United States agreed to extend the partial lift on sanctions on Russian oil exports. Does the Minister agree that this helps President Putin to fund his illegal and murderous war in Ukraine, and that it works directly against the national security interests of both Ukraine and the United Kingdom?
Stephen Doughty
The issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are of course for the United States. However, we are very clear that we will continue to ratchet up the economic pressure on Putin, to force him to come to the negotiating table and to provide support to Ukraine. Our sanctions remain in place, and we continue to work closely with others to increase that pressure. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have been very clear that we cannot allow the current global situation to result in any kind of bonanza for Putin.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The verified number of Ukrainian children stolen by Russia has increased—it now stands at 20,570. In part, that increase in the verified number is the result of the tracing mechanism supported by this Government, and we hope that work will continue. However, last month a report by the Yale Humanitarian Research Laboratory found that over the past two years the Russian state oil producers Rosneft and Gazprom have been implicated in the forcible deportation and re-education of at least 2,158 of those children. Will the Secretary of State review and fully investigate those findings and, where appropriate, consider the imposition of further sanctions?
Stephen Doughty
As ever, my hon. Friend is right to raise this crucial issue. I was very privileged to see for myself the incredible work that we are supporting to trace what has happened to those Ukrainian children. The figure she has cited is correct, and it is absolutely appalling. I am very proud of the work that we are doing with other countries on that issue, and I will certainly look at the issues she has raised. Of course, we have already taken action against the oil companies she mentioned.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In recent months, western sanctions have really been biting Putin, with the foundations of Russia’s economy failing. However, as we highlighted with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in December 2025, concerns have been reported that Russian crude is reaching refineries—including one part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal—via shadow fleet vessels, showing that gaps remain. Will the Government now lead efforts to crack down on those networks and press those refineries in Turkey, China and India to stop processing Russian oil?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady will know about the work we have already been doing on this crucial issue, which she is right to raise. We have been very clear on this. Under her Government, there was of course a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas imports, which we continued. We have gone further by announcing our intention to introduce a maritime services ban, and of course we will continue to co-ordinate with international partners on the issue she raises. We cannot allow those revenues to be used to fuel Russia’s terrible actions.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I returned overnight from a series of meetings across five countries in Europe, the middle east and Asia, and I spoke directly with more than a dozen of my Foreign Minister counterparts, as well as joining the 50-country summit hosted by the Prime Minister and President Macron. This is a critical diplomatic moment. The agreed two-week ceasefire runs until Thursday, and we need it to be extended. We need the negotiations to reach a comprehensive conclusion to this conflict, and we need the reopening of the strait with no conditions and no tolls. Our work is to maintain and build the biggest possible consensus around the rapid opening of the strait.
Naz Shah
Following reports that the Israeli military has published a map designating south Lebanese territory as a buffer zone, and given Israel’s refusal to confirm whether displaced Lebanese families will be allowed to return, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific representations the UK Government have made to Israel to ensure that this does not become a de facto annexation? Does she agree that any permanent occupation of Lebanese sovereign territory would not only violate international law, but actively undermine the US-Iran talks being mediated by Pakistan?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is completely right. Lebanese people need to be able to return to their homes. These are their homes, and it is a humanitarian disaster that so many people have been displaced from them. I have raised this issue directly with the Israeli Government, and we have made continued representations and raised this matter in international forums. We have also raised it with the US, which has been hosting the talks between Israel and Lebanon. It is hugely important that those talks progress, the ceasefire is maintained and Lebanese people can return home.
Sarah Edwards
My constituents in Tamworth are already paying the price for the blockade of the strait of Hormuz, with fuel costs soaring. My logistics sector is also facing the brunt of those fuel costs, which ultimately will be passed on to consumers. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s refusal to drag Britain into the United States’ reckless war, what steps is the Minister taking to secure the reopening of the strait and to bring down costs for my constituents and for the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We did not get involved in the start of this conflict, but we will work to bring it to a close and do everything we can to get the strait reopened. It is affecting the cost of living back at home in her constituency, across the country and across the world. No country should be able to hijack international shipping lanes or hold the global economy hostage. We have held repeated summits and meetings on the reopening of the strait, and we will continue to argue across the world for no tolls.
Steve Witherden
While energy giants and Wall Street banks cash in on the war, ordinary people pay the price. In the first month of the US-led war with Iran alone, the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies made more than $30 million an hour in unearned profit. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor on the merits of introducing windfall taxes to directly fund a cost of living support package, making life more affordable for people and businesses across the UK?
Yvette Cooper
The Chancellor will be making a statement later this afternoon, because she has been focusing in particular on the cost of living and the importance of supporting people and businesses across the country during this global crisis. Another concern is that Russia is seeking to benefit from this conflict, which is yet another reason why we need to get the strait open as rapidly as possible.
Mr Dillon
Given President Trump’s latest threats to destroy bridges and power plants—attacks that would be against international law—has the Foreign Secretary made representations to her US counterpart that threatening war crimes is not the way to achieve peace or to open the strait? More importantly, if Trump does start to attack civilian infrastructure, will she withdraw US access to British bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear from the start that UK bases could be used only for defensive operations, not offensive operations. There is currently a ceasefire in place, although it runs only until Thursday and we badly need it to be extended. As part of the G7 discussions, which included the US, we raised the importance of not attacking any civilian infrastructure. That was included in the G7’s agreed communiqué and reflects the importance that we attach to those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of what impact the conflict is having on the horrendous humanitarian situation in Yemen? Given Iran’s continued support for the Houthis, does she believe that in discussions to end the conflict there will be some opportunity to make a positive impact on that conflict?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has met the Yemeni Prime Minister in recent days, to engage with the Yemenis, to express our support and to ensure that they can address humanitarian issues. There is obviously a particular issue with Yemen, where Iranian proxies have been mobilised in the past, and it is important that does not happen now. It is another example of how vulnerable, low-income and conflict-affected countries are the most heavily affected by the restrictions on the Gulf and the strait of Hormuz.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary’s push for consensus is to be welcomed. Hopefully, the strait of Hormuz will be open shortly, which will lead to short and medium-term progress. In the longer term, does the Foreign Secretary agree that a lasting peace in the middle east will be more easily secured if we can take action against neighbouring states and elements within those states that threaten the absolute annihilation of the state of Israel?
Yvette Cooper
Israel’s security needs to be protected, and so does the security of Gulf countries that have been attacked as part of this conflict. We need security right across the region. The hon. Gentleman says that we hope the strait will soon be open. We have proposed that, as an immediate confidence-building measure, the Iranians should agree to the International Maritime Organisation’s proposal to start moving the stranded ships and the stranded seafarers. It could get on with that right now, even while negotiations are continuing. We need to get those ships moving and those seafarers home. That is what the IMO has proposed, and we have been building international support to pursue that as an immediate step.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The difficulty of ships passing through the strait is leading to fears across all sectors and supply chains, including food production, so the price of food is at risk as well as the price of oil. Increasingly offensive and bizarre social media posts by President Trump are bound to be making diplomatic efforts more difficult, and make us worry whether anything he says can be taken seriously. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that all parties are coming to the table in good faith?
Yvette Cooper
I met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister in the last few days, and the hon. Lady will know that Pakistan is leading the mediation work as part of this effort. I have also spoken frequently to the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and we have been engaging with a whole series of countries. Over the last few days, I have met more than a dozen Foreign Ministers and counterparts to ensure that everyone is pressing the same messages as part of this process. We need the ceasefire extended and a swift resolution, but we must have the strait opened and we must have no tolls. Proposals for tolls have been circulating, but that would be deeply damaging and would go against the law of the sea.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), was in Beirut at the end of last week, where he pressed those exact points and engaged with the Lebanese Prime Minister. We need an urgent ceasefire, and we need to support the work of the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese Government. That is why we have directly provided £30 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon since the beginning of this crisis. I believe that makes us one of the biggest donors to Lebanon, but we must continue to provide support.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A huge proportion of the global fertiliser market works its way through the strait, which is obviously going to impact on food security and food prices in this country, but it could also cause devastating famines in many countries in Africa and Asia. Research from the University of Minnesota shows that 762,000 people have died as a direct result of US aid cuts since January last year, and some will undoubtedly have died because of our decision to cut our aid budget too. Is this the moment to do the right thing by increasing our spending on international aid and protecting people from the calamity of famine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know from our statement that we have focused our support on fragile and conflict-affected states. We are also working, including with the World Bank, to monitor the states most heavily affected by shortages of fertiliser, and of food and oil supplies, which are having a huge impact.
I just want to correct the point I made about the additional funding we have provided for Lebanon being £30 million from the beginning of the crisis. As I understand it, the figure is £30 million since the beginning of this year and £20 million since the beginning of the crisis. However, Lebanon is one of the countries we have ensured we are protecting by continuing to invest and by providing humanitarian support.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As I have said many times in this House, Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies, and ensuring its long-term operational security is and will continue to be our priority. We remain confident that the UK-Mauritius treaty is the best way to defend the future of the base. We are obviously disappointed with the delay, which I set out the other day, but we will continue to work with the United States and Mauritius on the way forward.
David Simmonds
The Chagos islands are even further from my constituency than they are from Mauritius, which is saying something, but this is having a significant local impact. Hillingdon council is now caring for hundreds of Chagossians fleeing to this country through Heathrow airport to escape the consequences of the Government’s proposed deal, which is placing huge financial pressure on my local authority. Will the Minister undertake to cancel this proposed UK-Mauritius treaty, to bring certainty about the future of the base and ensure that my constituents do not continue to bear the consequences of those forced to flee by the Government’s actions?
Stephen Doughty
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I simply disagree with the premise of what he says. Chagossians who have been coming to this country have come because of agreements made under the previous Government for them to acquire British citizenship, which entitles them to come here. Support has been provided to councils, and I have worked closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on this issue. If he has any further concerns or requests to make sure, he should do that through the usual channels.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Last week, this feeble Government limped to this House to announce that their shameful Chagos surrender Bill was being ditched—a diplomatic failure entirely owned by this Labour Government. Our friends and allies alike around the world were left bemused by the deal that this Government came up with. This week, the Government have sent a team of officials to Mauritius. Can the Minister make it clear that that team have been told unequivocally to tell the Mauritius Government that the deal is dead, the UK will be sending no money to the Mauritius Government and the Chagos islands will be remaining British?
Stephen Doughty
With the exception of when I broke my ankle before Christmas, I have never limped to this House on any occasion. I came here with confidence to set out the reasons why this treaty was needed for our national security. Our officials engage regularly not only with Mauritius, but with the United States and other partners. This deal was of course welcomed by our allies, including our Five Eyes partners, so I simply do not accept what the shadow Minister has said.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Yesterday I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee—its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is in the House—after the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, to set out this process and to engage in the very important scrutiny that the House provides on this matter. We are all committed to fully implementing and ratifying the treaty as soon as possible to realise its benefits for the people of Gibraltar. There is obviously a complex process, but my understanding is that provisional application of the treaty will be possible from 15 July, which will secure the key benefits of the treaty for the people of Gibraltar, including the fluid border, allowing businesses and working people more certainty and prosperity.
Peter Fortune
I ask the House to note my relatively recent visit to Gibraltar, which is declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The naval base in Gibraltar is of high strategic importance and the decision to allow the Spanish authorities to monitor equipment going to the British military is highly concerning. Will the Minister guarantee that the treaty will neither directly nor indirectly in any way limit the operations, access or security of the UK naval base?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. We would not have signed off the deal without those assurances. The Ministry of Defence, the Defence Secretary and others were fully involved at all stages of the process. We have been very clear that the treaty protects the operational autonomy of our military facilities, which will continue to operate unfettered, as they do today.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on this significant announcement. Does the Minister agree with me that the agreement provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities for its people? Does he agree that anyone in this House who has any concerns should listen to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who knows better than anyone what is best for the people who elected him and he represents?
Stephen Doughty
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. It is important to note that Gibraltar’s sovereignty was never on the table in the negotiations—we have been very clear about that throughout. The agreement has been supported by and worked through with the Government of Gibraltar throughout, and it was unanimously supported by Gibraltar’s Parliament. That is very important to note in this House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister made a statement to the House on 26 February. Sadly, that has not been followed by the detail that Parliament was promised. In his most recent answers to my written parliamentary questions he says that the final treaty will be laid “As soon as possible” after EU processes conclude, yet the Government of Gibraltar have stated that it is provisionally due to come into force in July. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementation and confirm when Parliament will be given proper time to scrutinise the full details? Will he guarantee that scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process will take place before provisional application?
Stephen Doughty
As I set out yesterday, the timetable is not entirely in our control, because it relates to the other party in the treaty, the EU, and its processes. Mr Speaker, you will know that I brought forward the entire text of the draft treaty so that this House had a chance to scrutinise it. I have also provided briefings to the right hon. Lady and her colleague, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as I did yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will follow the CRaG process in the usual way. I will ensure that the House is kept fully informed and is able to scrutinise as appropriate.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the fact that UK Security Vetting recommended against granting vetting of Peter Mandelson, and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office instead took the decision to grant the vetting. The Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and I should have been told that there was an issue and I am very troubled that we were not. The result is that Parliament was not given all the information it should have been given. As I informed the Select Committee over the weekend, I have commissioned a review of all the information provided and I will write to the Chair further on that shortly.
The permanent under-secretary is no longer in post, and I want to recognise Sir Olly Robbins’ many years of dedicated public service, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. I also want to pay tribute to the FCDO and the incredible staff who work not just here in the UK but across the world promoting UK interests and values at an incredibly unstable time. That is what has made it possible for me to travel through five different countries in the past six days, pursuing international diplomacy. The scale of global insecurity impacting our economy and our national security will rightly continue to be the central focus of the FCDO and this ministerial team.
Naz Shah
As the conflict in the middle east has fundamentally demonstrated, modern warfare has evolved. Ballistic and hypersonic missiles are capable of overwhelming traditional air defence systems, and energy supplies, food security and critical goods are increasingly weaponised as instruments of coercion. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the Foreign Office is taking, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the United Kingdom is prepared for those threats, to protect our people and our country?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the changing technology, geopolitics and security threats. We now face very different threats to our country. That is why we are increasing both the defence budget and the Foreign Office’s work around a range of hybrid threats, including cyber and others, and we will need to continue to do so. I suspect that we will need to accelerate that work, too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.
Yvette Cooper
The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.
Priti Patel
Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?
Yvette Cooper
I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues and of the concern in Burnley. I raised exactly those concerns about the west bank with counterparts from the United States—with high representatives from the board of peace—and most importantly with the Palestinian Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to ensure that people on the west bank are protected from settlement violence. Settlements have expanded at an historic rate and are a subject of deep controversy both in Israel and in this House. We will continue to raise these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
This morning the Foreign Affairs Committee learned that officials in No. 10 put pressure on the FCDO to find a job as ambassador for Matthew Doyle, a close friend of a convicted sex offender. Does the Foreign Secretary see a pattern here? Does she find it incredible that No. 10 told FCDO officials not to tell her predecessor about this proposal? Will she commit to investigating and publishing all records held by the FCDO about this proposal from No. 10? Is she concerned that political decisions by No. 10 about FCDO staffing have grossly eroded trust and morale among her hard-working civil servants?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, I was the Home Secretary at the time that I understand that took place, so I was not involved and do not know the circumstances. I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the permanent secretary or permanent under-secretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the Foreign Secretary. As for the case that the hon. Member raised, I can confirm that it would also not have been an appropriate appointment.
Let me respond to the wider issue. As I said in my opening statement, I pay tribute to the phenomenal dedication of the people who work right across the Foreign Office. They work with me every single day at a time of immense global instability, and they are continuing to work with huge dedication on pursuing UK interests and UK values, because that is what makes us stronger at home.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises this issue. In Berlin last week with my German, French, US, EU and African Union co-hosts, we called for an urgent ceasefire, a humanitarian truce and humanitarian access. It is deeply distressing that this conflict is continuing. Participants also pledged over £1 billion to support the humanitarian response, which includes £146 million of UK humanitarian funding this year for Sudan and an increase in the support given to local aid groups. However, it is desperately urgent that we get a ceasefire, because it is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Yvette Cooper
As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we believe that Ministers should have been informed that the UK Security Vetting recommendation was against granting developed vetting to Peter Mandelson. That is significant and important information. It should have been disclosed to the Prime Minister at the time, and it should certainly have been disclosed to me at the time when I was answering specific questions from the Select Committee that were particularly about security concerns and what the response had been to them. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, he spoke to Sir Olly before making the decision.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The most immediate, urgent thing we need to do internationally is get the strait of Hormuz reopened. That is what I have been pursuing in a series of diplomatic meetings over the last few days across five different countries with 12 different Foreign Ministers. On the domestic issue, the Chancellor will be making a statement shortly.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Mr Falconer
I want to reassure this House that the Government have not taken our eye off events in Lebanon or indeed in Israel and Palestine. That is why I was in Beirut last week with the Lebanese Prime Minister, President and various others and in Brussels yesterday with the Palestinian Prime Minister and a range of other key actors. Clearly, what the European Union does is a matter for itself. We have taken a series of steps in the way that the Foreign Secretary has already set out, and we will keep those under close review.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In my constituency, I recently met a young woman from Somaliland who in recent years has lost 14 members of her family to fighting in the region. She and other campaigners from Somaliland are understandably reticent to use the new e-visa system introduced by the Somalian Government due to fears about privacy and data protection. Will the Minister raise those questions with his counterparts in the Somalian Government to ensure that Somalilanders can travel to their country without fear?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and offer my condolences to her young constituent. The British embassy in Mogadishu has raised e-visas with the Federal Government of Somalia. We will provide further updates to travel advice in due course, as necessary. We continue to raise these issues and call for peaceful talks to bring about a sustainable peace in Somalia.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
We discussed this issue directly at the Berlin conference. I agree with the hon. Member. To be honest, I think that the international community has failed the people of Sudan. The war continues in the most horrendous circumstances. We have urged anyone who can to put pressure on the RSF and the SAF, and they must allow humanitarian access to people who desperately need it.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency including trailer manufacturer Indespension are labouring under a mountain of repetitive, costly and unnecessary paperwork because the last Government failed to negotiate a regime for mutual recognition of conformity assessments. What progress has the Foreign Secretary made, with the Paymaster General, in removing the Brexit barriers to trade that are holding back British businesses abroad?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend raises an important question on behalf of his constituents. Our long-term national interest, and indeed the interest of businesses in his constituency, requires a closer EU partnership anchored in common understanding. We are tackling trade barriers, and we are working hard on these issues with the Paymaster General. We continue to discuss the challenges faced by manufacturers on both sides, as well as trade and co-operation agreement implementation, at the trade specialised committees. We will have a chance to discuss many of these issues at the further summit that we will have later this year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member may know, I have repeatedly summoned the Iranian ambassador on concerns about what goes on in the UK. Some elements of the alleged attacks in the UK are still sub judice, but I want to leave him in no doubt about how forcefully we have raised these points with the Iranian ambassador, and indeed with the Iranian regime.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Constituents involved in my local Rotary club have contacted me about the global polio eradication programme. I am reliably advised that Ministers want to concentrate resources for the best impact. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the UK remains determined to protect the important gains made in polio eradication for the future?
Chris Elmore
I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I pay tribute to Rotarians who have worked for the eradication of polio over so many decades. We will continue to support global polio eradication directly until December 2026 and then support our polio eradication fund through £248 million of fully flexible core funding to the World Health Organisation between 2025 and 2028. We remain utterly committed to eradicating polio around the world.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Last month, the Rycroft review confirmed that the UK faces persistent and strategic interference from hostile states and warned that our defences against information warfare are “worryingly weak”. With important elections across the country in two weeks’ time, including in my Stockport council area, what steps are the Government taking, working with our allies, to prevent disinformation from overseas aimed at those participating in UK elections?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady raises a crucial issue, and I work closely with the Security Minister and others on these matters. Our electoral system is highly resilient and to date we have not seen evidence of successful Russian interference in UK democratic processes. However, we know that the Kremlin is seeking to sow discord in the west and in the UK and to undermine our institutions. We are working on a series of measures to ensure that it cannot achieve that foothold in our society or our democracy.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
On 1 January, Israel revoked the licences of 37 international non-governmental organisations working in the occupied west bank and Gaza. The United Nations human rights chief called the suspensions “outrageous” and said that they made
“an already intolerable situation even worse for the people of Gaza”.
What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Israeli Government allow lifesaving aid to enter Gaza, reverse the suspensions of the licences and do not politicise or weaponise aid and humanitarian relief?
Mr Falconer
We have continued to raise the importance of all the necessary aid getting into Gaza. It is welcome that over the last week the amount of aid that has gone in has increased, but it is still not adequate to the needs. We have raised the question of restrictions directly and repeatedly with the Israeli Government and we will continue to do so. It is vital that aid gets to the people who need it.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Would the UK consider a state to be a democracy and would it continue normal diplomatic relations with that state were it to introduce a differential death penalty based on ethnicity?
Mr Falconer
I think the hon. Member refers to the legislation passed in the Israeli Knesset. We oppose the death penalty everywhere. On 29 March, we joined many of our friends across the world to condemn that specific measure, and the Foreign Secretary has raised it specifically with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I can leave the House in no doubt about our opposition to the measures.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?
Yvette Cooper
I know that my right hon. Friend has been taking evidence on that issue and that she has raised issues around security. We take the issue of security extremely seriously. She will know that there is a police investigation under way, which raises some of those issues. She will appreciate that I do not want to say anything that would cut across that, but I am happy to discuss the matter with her further.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?
Mr Falconer
I was discussing precisely these issues yesterday. Hamas must disarm; there must be a process by which their weapons are decommissioned. There are ongoing discussions on those questions. Hamas must agree, voluntarily, to disarm. That is vital and it is a key component of the 20-point plan. Without agreement on that point, it will be difficult to make progress. I was discussing that with a range of our international counterparts yesterday and we will continue to remain very focused.
Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity quickly to correct—
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sudan and the failing international response, will the Foreign Secretary consider further economic measures and sanctions, including against the nationals of the countries that support the belligerents? Will she encourage the Prime Minister to prioritise Sudan in his international engagements so he can show the leadership that she has shown?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are continuing to raise matter this as well. We assess that around a dozen countries are providing different kinds of arms flow support to the warring parties. That is an extremely serious concern and we are raising it with a range of countries. We also continue to look at the issue of sanctions.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have publicly accessible registers in some of the overseas territories—in Gibraltar and Montserrat—and there has been welcome progress on legitimate interest access registers in a number of them, including in recent weeks, but I absolutely agree that we need to go much further. We are working closely to ensure that there is progress, and I have set out my expectations very clearly.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I have always been assured by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained in India for eight and a half years, would continue to be raised at all levels, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary met her counterpart Jaishankar on two occasions recently and was unable to do so. Can I have the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that she remains committed to raising Jagtar’s case and is actively working to secure his release?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we continue to raise the important case of Jagtar Singh Johal and to seek a resolution to his case as soon as we can.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Last month, the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand that countries including the United Kingdom pay reparations for slavery. Astonishingly, the Foreign Secretary instructed our ambassador to abstain and to issue a pathetic hand-wringing statement that failed to mention the United Kingdom’s unique role in the eradication of this great evil. Are we a punchbag or are we a great, proud country? Will the Foreign Secretary explain her decision and state to the House unequivocally that the United Kingdom will never pay a penny of British taxpayers’ money in reparations?
Chris Elmore
We are, of course, against reparations, and when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative party, I think he was against them, but who knows what he is for or against now? Goodness only knows. Let’s face it, Mr Speaker, he has just got his clip for social media, and this is all the response that he deserves.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
March was one of the deadliest months on record for settler violence in the occupied west bank. For communities such as Jayyous, life is becoming intolerable. Will the Government go further than the diplomatic pressure currently being exerted and expand sanctions on the many Israeli officials explicitly and brazenly empowering settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As I said earlier, it remains uppermost in our minds, and we discussed it with our partners yesterday. He will have heard Ministers say before from this Dispatch Box that we will not speculate on further sanctions, but we treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a ceasefire in Sudan is a key priority. In the light of the Berlin conference’s shortcomings, can she detail the diplomatic, economic and political levers she is using to bring an end to the violence, particularly with the UK’s allies, including the UAE, with direct stakes in the war?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that as well as discussing this matter intensively at the Berlin conference, I discussed it with the UAE Foreign Minister, whom I met a couple of days ago. I also discussed it with the other members of the Quad—the US, Saudi and Egypt. We are continuing to work not just with the Quad but much more widely to engage all countries in pressure to get to a ceasefire.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?
Stephen Doughty
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has set out answers to those questions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a matter of objective fact, this House was misled about the circumstances of Mandelson’s security vetting, even if that misleading was inadvertent?
Yvette Cooper
The House was not given the full information. It is important that it should be given the full information, and I have undertaken to write to the Select Committee ensuring that full, as well as accurate, information is provided.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In the UK, we pride ourselves on allowing people to practise their religion freely. Can the Minister update the House on what he is doing with any new regime in Iran to protect the rights of Christians to worship openly there?
Mr Falconer
Freedom of religious belief continues to be an important issue that the Foreign Office pursues with vigour. I am glad that we are joined in the Chamber by our envoy on that question, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). We have raised questions of freedom of religious belief with the Iranian Government on countless occasions. It is clear, given the scale of restrictions that they have put on their own people, that they are not listening to the United Kingdom’s advocacy on these questions, but we will continue to raise these questions and pursue the matter with our partners.
Mr Falconer
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer I gave the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in relation to the Iranian appointment. While it is true that our diplomats have raised concerns about human rights issues in general, the Foreign Secretary has not herself raised within the United Nations the question of this appointment. There has been no opportunity for her to do so.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
With permission, I will update the House on the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the continued action that the Government are taking to strengthen our economic and energy security in response to the conflict in the middle east.
We did not start this war and we did not join this war, but since the war in the middle east broke out, I have been clear-eyed about my duty: to be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The best economic policy today is our diplomatic policy—negotiation, de-escalation and the permanent reopening of the strait of Hormuz.
Last week in Washington, I held talks with world Finance Ministers, including the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. I struck a joint agreement with 10 other major economies, calling for a swift and lasting negotiated resolution to the conflict and agreeing to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions to support energy and food security. We agreed to maintain maximum economic pressure to ensure that Russia cannot profit from this war. I was proud to announce the UK’s third tranche of the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration funding for Ukraine’s defences, as well as continuing to work with the US Administration to increase economic pressure on Iran.
The Prime Minister has also led global action, convening a summit of nations with the President of France to work together to support freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz. The UK will continue to play its part, including engagement with the insurance industry to support shipping when conditions allow.
We are continuing to plan for every eventuality, but we must deal with the economic costs that are already being felt. I reject the demands for a knee-jerk response to this crisis that would put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. Every choice that I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses. That is why I have extended the 5p cut for fuel duty twice since the election, saving the average motorist £90 a year compared with the plans that I inherited. It is why I have frozen prescription charges for two years in a row and frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years; it is why I am taking £150 off energy bills with additional help for those struggling with the cost of heating oil; and it is why I have expanded the British industrial competitiveness scheme to over 10,000 manufacturers, addressing long-term competitiveness and cutting electricity costs from this year.
During the last energy shock, the previous Government’s package of unfunded and untargeted support saw more than a third of direct energy bill support go to the wealthiest households. That meant higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. I will not repeat those mistakes. Last week, the IMF said that my plan is “the appropriate response” to the conflict. I led a joint statement, with 10 other major economies, agreeing to co-ordinate our domestic responses, to ensure that they are responsive and responsible. This Government have the right plan for our economy. At the spring forecast, we saw how the action that we have taken since the election has prepared Britain to better weather this conflict. Inflation was at 3% and set to fall to target—a lower base than at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, when inflation was high and rising. Borrowing was set to fall more over this Parliament than in any other G7 economy. We are set to reduce the deficit by £20 billion, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP this year. I increased our financial buffers, with headroom against the stability rule of £23.7 billion, so that we can weather shocks and keep borrowing costs down.
Last week, the IMF welcomed the UK’s “notable improvement” in our public finances. I am clear that the best way we can build a stronger, more resilient economy is through economic growth. I welcome recent figures showing that the economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and upgraded growth for the three months to January to 0.3%. I also welcome this morning’s labour market figures for February, which show unemployment coming down and real wages continuing to rise, as they have in every month since I became Chancellor—adding to the evidence that the Government have the right economic plan to steer our economy through the uncertainty ahead.
However, as I have said, the war in Iran will come at a cost. Last week, the IMF published its updated forecasts for the global economy in response to the war. It reduced its expectations for GDP growth in the United Kingdom and increased its expectations for inflation. That builds on the IMF’s judgment that the UK is more exposed to energy price shocks than our counterparts—a problem that the previous Government failed to address in 14 years—and on its observation that, since the last energy crisis, the UK has had higher inflation than other countries. The aftermath of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, and the previous Government’s untargeted and unfunded support package, contributed to a more persistent rise in inflation and interest rates than in other countries around the world.
The IMF’s forecasts are a stark reminder of why we must stick to our economic plan and go further and faster on delivering economic security. Since the election, we have invested in clean, home-grown energy, in renewables and in nuclear power. In 2025, we imported 17% less gas than in 2021, and gas generation now sets the wholesale price of electricity around a third less frequently than it did in the early 2020s, meaning that our energy system is now more secure and less exposed to volatile global energy prices.
Today we are going further, with a package of changes to reduce our reliance on imported oil and gas, boost the use of renewables, and smooth the impact of energy price shocks. First, oil and gas production from the North sea is an important and valuable resource, and its workforce is a vital asset for our country. That is why we are harnessing our domestic supply by managing existing fields for their entire lifetimes, including by allowing tiebacks for those fields to ensure that they remain viable. Today, in advance of legislation, we are publishing further details on tiebacks, which I first announced in the Budget. External analysis has predicted that they could result in tens of millions more barrels of oil and gas being available for UK supply. Today’s announcement gives industry greater clarity to support investment in those projects and maximise supply from our existing sites to support our energy security.
Secondly, we are sweeping away the barriers to new renewables investment by accelerating vital grid infrastructure, reforming land access rules and extending permitted development rights, as well as making more public land available for renewable infrastructure, which could unlock up to 10 GW of capacity, and helping households and businesses to switch to clean, cheaper renewable electricity through plug-in solar panels and better electric vehicle charging.
Thirdly, we are reforming our energy system. Currently, households and businesses pay more for their electricity when the gas price is high. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by generators due to high gas prices. Today, I am announcing that I will extend the electricity generator levy beyond its scheduled conclusion in 2028, and, ahead of that, I will increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55%. That will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to Government, providing a vital revenue stream so that money is available for Government to support businesses and families with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east. Crucially, it will encourage older low-carbon electricity generators, which supply about a third of our power, to move from market pricing to fixed-price contracts for difference.
New proposals, set out by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero today, will further weaken the link between high gas prices and the price paid for our electricity, and limit the spikes in energy prices from driving up inflation and costs for households and businesses.
The Government have the right economic plan—a plan that was right before this conflict in the middle east started and is now essential to weather the impact of that conflict. The plan, backed by the IMF, will keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most. In a world that is more uncertain, it is a plan to build a Britain that is stronger and more secure. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement.
The UK has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is crippling our economy and pushing up the cost of living, and it leaves us particularly exposed to energy shocks such as the one we are experiencing right now. Yet the Government seem totally unwilling to accept the scale of the problem and to shift in their dogmatic commitment to a net zero agenda, which is making us poorer.
Last year, we Conservatives came forward with our cheap power plan. We said that the Government needed to scrap carbon taxes and the renewables subsidies, which are pushing up bills, and reverse the nonsensical decision to rely on imported oil and gas instead of pursuing the common-sense approach of extracting our own resources from the North sea. Under pressure from this Conservative Opposition, there has been some progress at least, but it has been made at a snail’s pace. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been dragged, with oh so much reluctance, in the direction that we have set out.
The action taken goes nowhere near far enough and is not fast enough. At the Budget, the Government announced they would take 75% of the cost of renewables off bills, but they did not abolish the subsidies, as we called for them to do. They are still being paid—maybe not out of people’s energy bills, but out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. When it comes to the vast majority of businesses in our country, this Government have done nothing for them.
The proposals announced today risk locking in the costs of those subsidies by including them in the new contracts for difference, to which the Government are hoping that energy producers will sign up. Can the Chancellor confirm that this is the case—that under these arrangements, these subsidies will not only persist but will be guaranteed? The new contracts announced today are, of course, voluntary, so on what basis do the Government think these changes will lead to an overall reduction in energy bills? Presumably, generators will only sign up to these arrangements if it is in their commercial interest to do so. How will the Government ensure that companies do not simply game the system and end up being guaranteed higher prices?
By how much will these announcements reduce energy bills? Has the Energy Secretary even provided the Chancellor with an estimate of the impact on bills? If there is no estimate, how can the Chancellor be confident that bills will indeed be reduced, not increased? On that point, we can put a number on our plan: it would mean £200 off household bills. Why can the Chancellor not do the same with this latest announcement?
The Government have also said they will get rid of carbon price support. That is welcome, but they are not doing it until next year, and the CPS is only part of the carbon tax, which the Opposition are clear needs to be scrapped completely. It costs both households and businesses, and it needs to go. Why will the Chancellor not commit to removing these taxes completely? On taxes, the Chancellor noted the importance of keeping fuel duty down, but once again she had nothing to say about the onerous increase that she still plans to bring forward in September.
Finally, we have had no meaningful action today on the issue of North sea oil and gas. The Chancellor says she wants to reduce our exposure to global energy prices, yet the Government are choosing to leave us more reliant on imported hydrocarbons. We all know that she is in a completely different place on this to the Energy Secretary. He is committed to the gradual smothering of our oil and gas sector, regardless of the cost to our economy and the loss of those jobs and tax revenues. Why does the Chancellor not urge the Prime Minister to overrule the Energy Secretary on these matters? The revenues from new oil and gas extraction are vital, given the state of our public finances.
The current crisis shows how exposed we are and how damaging the Government’s net zero obsession has been to our economy, to households and to businesses. The Government are right to want to reduce that exposure, but they are doing too little, too late. We need an urgent change of course, not dither and delay. We need a proper cheap power plan to get bills down, and we need it now.
Rachel Reeves
That response exposes a shadow Chancellor who is out of credible ideas. I was sad to read in the weekend’s newspapers that once again, he is being lined up for the sack by the Leader of the Opposition, but to be honest, after his performance today, I can understand her choice.
The shadow Chancellor talks about the IMF. Yes, the IMF did downgrade the forecast. Why? It is because of a war, which his party unquestioningly backed, and because of our high exposure to global energy markets, which his party allowed. We are taking the right choices. We did not back this war, nor did we follow the calls of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform to join in. We are investing in and reforming our energy market, so that we can take back control of our energy security.
The shadow Chancellor talks about the economy. Well, let’s talk about the economy. Before this war broke out, our economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to February and 0.3% in the three months to January. Inflation was expected by the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility to return to target, and interest rates had been cut by their fastest rate in 17 years, compared with hitting 5.25% under the Conservatives, which saw mortgage costs going through the roof. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) says it is the Bank of England’s job to address inflation, but we had the same Bank of England when the Conservatives were in government. It has cut interest rates while we have been in government because we got control of the public finances, and the Conservatives lost control of the public finances.
The shadow Chancellor says that the response to a fossil fuel crisis is to rely more on fossil fuels and to reduce investment in clean, home-grown energy. He is ignoring the fundamental lesson of both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Chancellor opposed new solar energy, opposed onshore wind power and did not invest in either Sizewell C or small modular reactors, as this Labour Government are doing. Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK has said that
“reducing the link between the volatile global gas prices and the cost of electricity is the best way to protect households, businesses and industries against the unpredictable and volatile costs of fossil fuels in the long term, to strengthen the UK’s energy security.”
The shadow Chancellor says that tiebacks make no difference, yet Offshore Energies UK says that
“developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions, and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure”,
which is exactly why we are doing it.
The shadow Chancellor says that delinking would lead to higher prices. It is the exact opposite. The whole aim here is to move to fixed prices. By increasing the electricity generator levy—we do not know whether the Conservative party supports or opposes it—we incentivise those energy companies to come off the levy and come on to contracts for difference. We are beginning the negotiations with industry, so that we can reduce that volatility in prices. As the CEO of E.ON has said today,
“For too long, the value in our energy system has flowed to those at the top of the chain. Today’s move starts to turn that around”,
because we can take out of the system the volatility and the spikes, which are so damaging for both family finances and business finances. But the shadow Chancellor had nothing to say on that.
Fuel duty was never lower in 14 years under the Conservatives than it is today. Of course, we are keeping all scenarios under review, but it is quite clear that the best way to bring down fuel prices is to de-escalate this conflict, not ramp it up like the Conservatives want to do.
The shadow Chancellor has nothing to say on international co-operation, nothing to say on global negotiations to keep the strait of Hormuz open, nothing to say on reform of our energy market and nothing to say on investment in our infrastructure. Why? It is because he has no plan. Why? Because he does not have any ideas. Why? Because his party has no economic credibility. Labour has the right plan for our country. The Conservatives would take us right back to the bad days of high inflation, high interest rates and the mess they made of our economy.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The conflict in Iran is also a matter of energy security and the cost of energy. It is a reminder for the second time in four years of the dangers of being dependent on international fossil fuel markets and of the need to reduce our dependence. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a lot of evidence about the importance of decoupling the price of electricity from the price of gas, so may I encourage the Chancellor to bring forward measures that will reduce the amount of time that gas can continue to set the price of electricity? It is a pity that the Conservative party did not take that approach following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when it had the chance.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that question, and for his important work on this issue. There are two ways to reduce the number of days in which the gas price sets the electricity price. First is to invest more in home-grown renewables and in nuclear, so that more of the mix is made up of electricity. The second way is to delink gas and electricity prices, first by increasing the electricity generators levy to bring in money but also—this is crucial—by incentivising those companies that are currently getting the market price to go instead on to a contract for difference, which gives greater certainty for families, pensioners and businesses with their bills. That is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.
The Chancellor should have come here today to explain how she was going to use the £20 million extra that the Treasury is pulling in every single day through higher VAT, a higher energy profits levy and other taxes, to tackle the immediate cost of fuel crisis that is facing families and businesses today. The Chancellor is fundamentally wrong when she says that a knee-jerk response would have put household finances at risk through higher inflation and higher interest rates. We need just to look at what other countries are doing. The Government could have used that £20 million to drive down prices—the price of petrol at the pump, the price of train and bus fares, and the price of home-charging electric vehicles. Slashing those prices could have helped the Chancellor to control inflation and higher interest rates. That is what other countries are doing, and what we Liberal Democrats are calling for.
The Liberal Democrats were the only political party to have in our manifesto a commitment to break the link between gas and electricity prices, so we are glad that 18 months on, the Government have finally listened.
In addition to the measures outlined today, may I ask the Chancellor about two specific things? First, has she spoken to any banks about rolling out low-interest loans for householders who want to do the right thing and adopt energy-saving measures, but are struggling with the up-front costs? Secondly, I met the Competition and Markets Authority on Monday. The CMA and Ofgem both agree that there is a case to answer about the broken energy market and why hospitality and small businesses are being blocked. Will the Chancellor join me in writing to Ofgem and asking it finally to investigate, without any further delay, a broken energy market that is blocking hospitality and small businesses from accessing the best deals?
Rachel Reeves
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady and her party opposed the war and did not want the UK to become involved, unlike the Conservatives and Reform. However, I find what she has just set out fundamentally economically illiterate. The idea that a great fiscal policy is to close the strait of Hormuz! Why did we not think of that when we came to office? If we close the strait of Hormuz, all our problems will be over because we can get in all this money—that is what the hon. Lady is suggesting; that we will get some great windfall from a tax. The truth is that the IMF and every other forecaster are clear that tax revenues will be lower, not higher, because of the conflict in the middle east. The money that the hon. Lady wants us to spend simply does not exist. I am afraid she is falling into the failed economic policies of the Conservatives, who delivered untargeted, unfunded support that resulted in higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher taxes. She is suggesting an untargeted approach, but that is what got us into the mess we are in today.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady supports us on decoupling, which is the right thing to do with our gas and electricity prices. I regret that she and her party did not support the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which enables us to build the homes and energy infrastructure that we need. On working with banks, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is working with every high street lender and energy company to help people who are struggling with their bills.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, in 2022 Liz Truss launched a household energy support package that provided blanket support to every household, including the most well off. It was estimated to cost between £57 billion and £60 billion, just over the first six months; that was predominantly funded by borrowing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right and fiscally responsible thing to do during this crisis is to provide targeted support to those who need it most?
Rachel Reeves
More than one third of that support for energy bills went to the top third of households. That makes no sense at all, especially when those households then end up being burdened with higher interest rates on their mortgages, higher inflation in the shops, and higher taxes for years to come. The right approach is a targeted one, to keep costs and interest rates down for everybody. Of course, the best economic policy would be a de-escalation of this conflict, not ramping it up, as the Conservatives and Reform want to do.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware of how important aviation is to the UK economy, particularly Heathrow, which is responsible for a huge amount of air freight and economic activity in my constituency. Given the reports regarding the supply chain for kerosene used in aviation, what measures is the Chancellor taking to ensure kerosene supply? What consideration has she given to tax relief to ensure that our aviation sector is sustainable and continues to contribute to the UK economy?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are a big supporter of our airports and the aviation sector. That is why we are backing a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Gatwick, as well as expansion at Stansted and Luton airports. We are in regular contact with the aviation sector. It is currently not reporting any challenges with security of supply, but as the hon. Gentleman and the House would expect, we are planning for all different scenarios. The best way to ensure security of supply is to reopen the strait of Hormuz by working to de-escalate this conflict.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that in this time of economic shocks, the Government are playing their proper role in protecting UK households from the worst harms, and I thank the Chancellor for the work that she is doing with other Finance Ministers and Governments to bring about a de-escalation of the war—unlike others, who advocate for escalation. Does she agree that, in addition to taking the measures that she has talked about today, and that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has announced, she must continue, alongside the rest of the Government, to press other Governments for de-escalation of the war? That is the best way to protect UK households.
Rachel Reeves
That is why the whole House welcomed the Prime Minister and the French President convening a meeting of 50 countries on Friday, to work on how we could reopen of the strait of Hormuz and, crucially, on the protection of vessels travelling through it, when it is safe for them to do so; and it is why I have been working with the insurance industry to ensure that the right cover will be available to vessels, when it is possible to travel through the strait again. When I was in Washington last week, I met our allies from the Gulf countries, who made clear the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz and preserving toll-free travel through it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Prices are going up, and if the Chancellor’s 5p increase in fuel duty between September and next March goes ahead, we will be the European country with the eighth highest fuel duty. Surely this is not the time for that increase. If she wants certainty, the best thing she could do, at that Dispatch Box, is cancel the fuel duty hike.
Rachel Reeves
I understand the concerns that people have about filling up their car with petrol and diesel right now. We have introduced the cheaper fuel finder tool, so that people can compare prices and get the best deal when they fill up their car, and we have had all the petrol retailers into No. 11 Downing Street to ensure that we do not have any price gouging. There are still four and a half months until September. We are preparing for every eventuality. I have extended the fuel duty freeze and the 5p cut twice already, which means that the average motorist is saving £90 more than they would have done under the plans that I inherited from the Conservative party.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The conflict in the middle east has again highlighted just how vulnerable our off-grid rural households are to fossil fuel-driven energy shocks. Does the Chancellor agree with me that the warm homes plan is a major opportunity to upgrade rural housing and cut bills? Will she confirm what further steps the Government are taking to encourage the take-up of low carbon technology?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenges felt in many rural communities. Those challenges are why I put in place additional money to help people with the cost of heating oil. We recognised that the £150 off energy bills introduced in April does not apply to heating oil, and we wanted to ensure that people had support with that. We are also extending and increasing the generosity of the warm homes plan, in particular by including boiler upgrades. That will help people in all communities, including rural communities, where the cost of heating homes is often higher.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
We are very fortunate in Scotland to already produce more renewable electricity than we consume, and of course we produce more oil and gas than we consume as well. Unfortunately, we do not experience any benefit in our bills. The Chancellor had the cheek to say that she regards the oil and gas workforce as a vital asset to the country, but they certainly do not feel like that, because a thousand of them are losing their job every single month. If she believes in jobs, investment, energy security and reducing climate emissions, will she outline why she has not yet moved to the oil and gas price mechanism? Why is the Chancellor allowing the Energy Secretary to overrule her and prioritise imports of liquefied natural gas, rather than supporting domestic energy sources?
Rachel Reeves
People in Scotland, and right across the UK, benefited from the money off their energy bills. We are one of the few countries in the world where energy bills for households went down in April, rather than up. That was because of the changes that I made in the Budget. Of course, that benefits households in Scotland as well. Today, the Energy Secretary and I have announced changes around tiebacks. The previous Government could have made such changes, but they did not. Offshore Energies UK has said:
“developing fields as tiebacks reduces costs, lowers emissions, and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure.”
This policy will help to create and support more jobs in Scotland in this vital sector. If the Scottish National party is so concerned about jobs, why does it not back nuclear in Scotland, just as this Labour Government back nuclear in England and Wales?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the announcements made by her and the Energy Secretary. We have seen two fossil fuel shocks in just the past five years, which have done untold damage to our economy. Half the recessions since the 1970s have been caused by similar fossil fuel shocks. It is clear that the move to clean, home-grown energy is good for the economy, good for security and good for household bills. What conversations have she and the Energy Secretary had with organisations that might be taking up voluntary agreements? When might those agreements be made, and when will we see the benefit of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices?
Rachel Reeves
Investment in nuclear and renewables can ensure security of supply, and security of price. Investment in fossil fuels cannot secure security of price, because that price is determined by international markets. A third of power is electricity that is not covered by a contract for difference. We are trying to get that on to contracts for difference, so that we can stabilise prices and avoid the spikes that we see because of the volatility in fossil fuel prices that my hon. Friend mentioned. The Energy Secretary and I have already met representatives from the energy sector to discuss this policy and the negotiation of contracts for difference. After the negotiations, and given the incentive to avoid the higher electricity generators levy, we are confident that many businesses will be happy and willing to move, through a negotiated price, on to contracts for difference.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The strangely cheerful outing by Treasury Front-Bench Members today makes them the equivalent of the band playing on the deck of the Titanic, as the Government sink around them after hitting the iceberg that is Peter Mandelson. If the Chancellor thinks that anybody out there genuinely feels that she has made the economy more resilient to economic shocks, then I am sorry to say that she is living in cloud cuckoo land. I have met the families who have less money in their pay packets because of her tax raids. I have met the businesses that are making people redundant, cutting investments or facing closure because of her tax rises. If she wants to help people in the economy, she should cut taxes.
Rachel Reeves
Today we have announced an increase in the electricity generators levy to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and all our constituents, to get lower prices for electricity. Instead of talking the country down, he might want to mention the fact that the economy grew by 0.5% in February, unemployment went down today, we have the fastest deficit reduction pace of any country in the G7, and in every single month that I have been Chancellor, wages have risen by more than prices. That is very different from what happened when his party was in charge.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I agree that the best economic policy today is diplomatic policy. Given the situation in Iran, will she tell us more about her plans for putting economic pressure on the leadership there to de-escalate this dreadful situation?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the best economic policy is diplomatic policy; it is reopening the strait of Hormuz, and de-escalating this conflict. That is why the Prime Minister hosted, with France, the coalition meeting last Friday, and why, when I met the US Treasury Secretary last week, we committed to doing more to increase the sanctions and the economic pressure on Iran. My team of Treasury officials met US Treasury officials last week to work out what more can be done, following the excellent work that our two Treasuries have already done together to increase economic pressure on Iran.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As a result of this war, agricultural inflation is running at 7.6%—more than twice general inflation levels. Red diesel has doubled in price and fertiliser supply is under serious threat. Predictably, food prices are likely to rise, causing hardship for millions of people, partly because of Britain’s lack of food security. Is it not time for the Government to U-turn on the Conservative policy that they inherited, which means that England is now the only country in Europe that does not use its farm payments to actively support its farmers to produce food?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his representation of the agricultural sector. As he knows, on the two occasions when we have extended the 5p cut in fuel duty, a commensurate benefit has been applied to red diesel, but I recognise the challenges faced, in the current conflict, by the agricultural sector and other sectors that are big users of diesel. That is why we are working hard with industry to ensure that the sectors get the support that they need. Crucially, we are also trying to de-escalate the conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz to improve the availability of diesel and fertiliser.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her statement. The setting of electricity prices to international gas prices has long been blamed for the erratic nature of our electricity bills—indeed, that was previously accepted by the Conservative party. While the Conservatives complained about it and did nothing, this Government are seeking to take action to disconnect those two issues. Will the Chancellor advise when she thinks that families will start to see a benefit from the decoupling of electricity prices from international gas prices?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend knows what she is talking about, not least because she is the MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, but also as a result of her previous career before taking her seat at the last election. There are two ways in which people will benefit. The first is in the short term, through the higher electricity generator levy. We have increased the rate from 45% to 55%, which will bring in money this year that can help us as a Government to relieve some of the pressure on families and businesses. We will also use the higher levy to negotiate the contracts for difference at a good price for bill payers and taxpayers so that we get rid of that volatility. I am confident that in the months ahead, while we have the higher electricity generator levy in place, we will be able to negotiate the new contracts and reduce the volatility. Crucially, the reduction in volatility will benefit both households and businesses.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I welcome the couple of positive references that the Chancellor made a little while ago to civil nuclear power? Given that we have in this country Rolls-Royce, a world-leading specialist in the design and construction of small modular mobile nuclear reactors, what plans do the Government have to support this particular sector so that we are less dependent on the whims of Iranian dictators in future?
Rachel Reeves
I was really pleased last week to sign with Rolls-Royce the contract for the first fleet of small modular reactors in the UK. They will be located on Anglesey, but they will create jobs for people from Derby to Warrington and from Manchester to Sheffield, and of course in north Wales and on Anglesey itself. We are also working with Rolls-Royce as it looks to secure contracts overseas, as it already has with Czechia, creating more good jobs here in Britain for this exciting new technology, which will also have the benefit of secure, home-grown energy.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Because of the action of this Government, rural communities in Norfolk received the highest payment of support for heating oil, with more than £3 million in the whole of England. However, a huge concern is that more than 60% of the applications that have been made have not been completed by the local Conservative-run council. What will the Chancellor’s action be to ensure that Norfolk county council gets these payments into the pockets of my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
I am sorry to hear that the Conservative-run council in South Norfolk has not completed 60% of the applications for help with heating oil. The Government made more than £50 million available and targeted it at such places and at my hon. Friend’s constituents, who need it most. I am very happy to follow up with the council to ensure that people get the support they need.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can we proceed without an unseemly exchange across the Dispatch Box? I would like to be able to hear the question from the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and I am sure that the Chancellor might also like to hear it so that she can respond.
Carla Denyer
I am relieved that the Government are now committed to breaking the price link between expensive gas and cheap renewables, but given that the proposed solution is voluntary for electricity generators, how will the Chancellor ensure that the proposals that she and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero are putting forward will actually deliver substantially lower bills? If I send them to her office, will she consider the proposals from the think-tank Commonwealth for a mandated, not-optional, fixed-price model to ensure that billpayers are not left at the mercy of the volatile international fossil fuel market?
Rachel Reeves
As I set out in my statement and as the hon. Lady said, we are delinking gas and electricity prices. That is the right policy, and we will achieve it through the increase in the electricity generator levy. By increasing it from 45% to 55%, we are providing a very strong incentive for companies that still get market prices to move on to contracts for difference to avoid the electricity generator levy. If they do not go on to a contract for difference, they will continue to pay the electricity generator levy, which I have extended today, and we can use that money to help people with their prices.
The hon. Lady’s commitment to lower prices and more secure supply would be a bit more credible if the Green party did not oppose new nuclear and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will make it easier to build the infrastructure investment in renewables and clean energy that we desperately need to lower bills and get ourselves off fossil fuels.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work that she and the Energy Secretary have done in this regard. The focus on renewables and the decoupling of gas and electricity is most welcome, but may I point something out? One of the problems that we inherited from the Conservatives, who have the gall to complain about the high cost to businesses and households, is that we are heading towards curtailment fees in 2030 of around £6 billion per annum. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) to discuss some of the technological options available to us to mitigate those soaring costs?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he has in this really important area. We are doing a number of things on this front. The Planning and Infrastructure Act, which passed through Parliament at the end of last year despite the opposition of the Conservatives and the Greens and the indifference of the Liberal Democrats, will enable us to build the infrastructure to get energy from offshore wind to people’s homes and businesses, as well as investment in battery technology so that we can store energy. My hon. Friend will also have heard the announcement last week that we will enable differential pricing at different times—for example, to be able to get free electricity in some cases at weekends, when the demand for energy is lower. Those are some of the things we are doing to better balance demand and supply on the grid, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Is the Chancellor aware that the price of gas in the US is 10% lower than at the start of the war, while here in the UK it is 30% higher? That proves that if we produce what we consume, there is actually a domestic price of gas. Will she have a word in the shell-like ear of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and tell him to get on and approve the licences at Jackdaw and beyond, including onshore? That would mean more gas, more production and lower prices.
Rachel Reeves
I think that the hon. Gentleman has just said that he is in favour of fracking. If so, I look forward to campaigning against him on that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work she is doing at this globally difficult time. As a proud coastal, naval and defence city, Portsmouth understands that economic, national and climate security are inseparable, from household bills to flood resilience and defence jobs. Will she reassure families and businesses in my constituency that today’s actions, such as decoupling, will protect them from rising costs, support the jobs that are so vital to our city and ensure that we have a city for future generations?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for her constituents in Portsmouth. The purpose of decoupling gas and electricity prices is to reduce the volatility. We all know from our constituencies how much lower-income families and pensioners, in particular, struggle with volatility in gas and electricity prices, because electricity is an essential and people need it for everyday use. Decoupling will smooth out some of the volatility in the price of energy, giving greater certainty to families, pensioners and businesses, which all have to contend with the volatility of the fossil fuel market. That is why we want to move to more contracts for difference, and that is what today’s policy will achieve.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In her statement, the Chancellor outlined a plan for tomorrow, but no help for today. The residents of Newbury—the small businesses and farmers—want to know how high the Chancellor will allow the prices of petrol, red diesel and fertiliser to go before she decides to take positive action and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis on those people. How high do those prices have to go, Chancellor?
Rachel Reeves
In Newbury, and indeed in all of our constituencies, people got £150 off their energy bills in April this year. There are very few countries in the world where energy bills fell in April; in most countries they are going up. That was possible only because of the measures I took in last year’s Budget. I have extended the 5p cut in fuel duty two times already since becoming Chancellor. Obviously, we are following very carefully what is happening in the middle east and looking at the impact on the UK economy, families and businesses, and we will be ready to respond. However, the best way to get bills and prices at the pump down is to de-escalate this conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party, and it is the policy of this Government, because that is the best way to help people with the costs of energy.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right not to take part in the war led by Donald Trump and Netanyahu, and the Chancellor is right not to engage in a knee-jerk reaction to this economic difficulty. However, will she keep under active consideration those who are most vulnerable—those who are on benefits and the hard-working families who will struggle to put food on the table, choosing between that and paying energy bills—and if need be, will action be taken immediately?
Rachel Reeves
When the previous Government intervened in the case of an energy price shock, more than a third of the benefit went to the top third of income earners. That makes no sense at all when Government resources are stretched and when it resulted only in higher interest rates, higher inflation and higher taxes for the exact same people. That is why we are looking at what targeted action could be taken. It is also why, at the beginning of this month, the new state pension increased by up to £575 and we got rid of the two-child limit on universal credit, which will lift almost half a million children out of poverty over the course of this Parliament.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
No farmers means no food, no hauliers means empty shelves, and no construction means a country that is not moving forward. In Northern Ireland, those three industries are now taking to the streets to protest, which is clear evidence that this Government’s inaction is pushing them to the brink. Will the Chancellor today do the right thing and commit to cutting fuel duty, scrapping punitive carbon taxes, and properly supporting the industries and sectors that are fundamental to this country’s security and stability?
Rachel Reeves
In Northern Ireland and across the country, people got £150 off their energy bills in April, and of course Northern Ireland was the biggest beneficiary of the support for heating oil—that support went disproportionately to Northern Ireland, given its greater reliance on heating oil compared with the rest of the country. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce business energy costs for 10,000 manufacturing firms from this year, taking up to 25% off their electricity costs, and decoupling will reduce electricity prices for both businesses and households. When those contracts for difference come in, that will have a direct impact, but in the meantime the higher electricity generator levy that is coming in this year will provide revenues so that the Government can help cushion this shock for businesses and families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I plan to let this statement run only until 2 o’clock. Many Members are still standing, so short questions and perhaps short answers would be very helpful in allowing me to get in as many as possible.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor is right: this was not our war, but its impacts are being felt by businesses and families in my constituency. What is almost as shocking as the recent price hike is how exposed our country is because of a decade of under-investment by the Conservative party in nuclear, onshore wind and updating our power networks. Can the Chancellor reassure me that while we keep a razor-sharp focus on the cost of living for families, we will also do our utmost to speed up the development and renewal of our energy networks, so that we can power this country from our own sources and not just rely on imports?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not our war—we chose not to join it, unlike the Conservative and Reform parties, which were egging us on to do so. However, we do need to become less exposed to global fossil fuel markets. That is why we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will enable us to build the energy infrastructure we need. It is why we signed off Sizewell C and a fleet of small modular reactors; it is why we are giving planning permission to solar farms; and it is why we have ended the effective moratorium on onshore wind—the cheapest form of electricity—to keep prices down for families, businesses and pensioners.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Chancellor said in her statement:
“Every choice I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses”.
However, when I speak to small business owners on high streets across my constituency of Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons—especially café and restaurant owners—they tell me that the soaring energy and food prices that are a result of war are only compounding the pain they were feeling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices to hike national insurance for employers and, in some cases, double their business rates. What action will she take this month and this quarter, not in a year’s time, to help those businesses stay afloat? We need them to stay open for the sake of our communities.
Rachel Reeves
The best thing we can do as a Government is to keep inflation and interest rates down. Since I became Chancellor, wages have risen faster than prices in every single month, giving people more money to spend, and interest rates have been cut six times—which will benefit all of our constituents, but those in London perhaps most of all, given that house prices are more expensive in places such as Twickenham—putting more money in people’s pockets. Today’s announcement about the British industrial competitiveness scheme will take up to 25% off energy bills for 10,000 businesses from this month, and decoupling will help all businesses with their energy costs. The electricity generator levy will bring in money this year, and then the new contracts for difference will reduce volatility and price spikes for all businesses.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
In my constituency, I hear from many small businesses that are worried about rising energy bills and what that means for their ability to grow and create jobs. As such, I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has outlined today, particularly decoupling gas and electricity, which will help to safeguard my constituents from these international spikes. However, everyone in this situation has to play their part. The Government are doing their bit, but could the Chancellor set out what conversations she is having with the energy companies themselves on how they can further support businesses with their energy costs at a time of global instability?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I understand the concerns that families and businesses have about the cost of energy and the risk of second-round effects if those costs are passed on to other goods and services in the economy. That is why my focus is on keeping interest rates and inflation down for everybody, and it is also why we are working to de-escalate this conflict. We are also working with energy companies to ensure that people who are struggling with energy debt, for example, are supported, and that people are not taken off contracts.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
On 3 March, during the Chancellor’s vacuous spring statement, I raised with her that the war which had just started in the middle east would have an inevitable and immediate consequence for energy prices. I asked her what she was going to do about it, and she said that she had no plans to do anything about it. Today, the Chancellor comes to the Chamber like the coo’s tail, talking about fiddling about with contracts for difference next year while my constituents are currently paying nearly £2 a litre for diesel. In Ireland, the Government spent €750 million to support farmers, hauliers, agriculture, fisheries and household energy bills. If the Chancellor were to do the same, the figure would be £8 billion. Where is the £8 billion for our communities, Chancellor?
Rachel Reeves
In the past two weeks, we have announced up to 25% off energy bills for 10,000 manufacturers, starting this month. Today, we have announced tiebacks to exploit more of our energy resource in the North sea, which has been welcomed by OEUK, and we have announced an increase in the electricity generator levy to bring in money to help with the costs of energy. We are one of the few countries in the world where energy bills went down in April, because of the decisions that I made in my Budget. Since I became Chancellor, wages have risen by more than prices in every single month and interest rates have been cut six times. That is the difference we are making. It would be nice if the SNP used the record funding we have given it to cut NHS waiting lists, rather than seeing them rise and rise.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and her nimble response to the energy shock, including support for heating oil consumers, who make up half the households in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. The future of energy security is not an either/or. We must pursue renewables with a community share in the wealth of wind, and we must use the tiebacks that she detailed to exploit existing licences in the North sea fully. Will the Chancellor encourage other Ministers to match her commitment by hastening the review of Jackdaw and Rosebank? That would not just ensure energy security, but send a message to workers that we are with them in the North sea and the wild Atlantic for years to come.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a balanced energy policy. While some parties oppose renewables, some parties oppose nuclear and some parties—oh, they have gone—oppose any oil and gas, this Government have a balanced energy policy. We are investing in new nuclear—small modular reactors and Sizewell C; we are investing in renewables—solar and onshore and offshore wind; and we are ensuring a bright future for North sea oil and gas. That is why today we set out our policy and more detail on tiebacks. It is also why, in the not-too-distant future, the Energy Secretary, in a quasi-judicial way, will make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank after the courts quashed the previous Government’s decision.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s announcement on cutting the link between wholesale gas and electricity prices, which will help to shield families across the UK from volatile fossil fuel prices. They are using the very measure that the Liberal Democrats proposed more than a year ago. It is now time to go further and faster to fix a broken energy market that results in households and businesses that are powered by solar and wind not having cheaper energy bills, and even having to pay on their energy bills to turn off wind farms in British waters. I have written to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss our proposals to accelerate reforms, bring down energy bills and secure our energy supply?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with the hon. Lady about decoupling. We are using an increase in the electricity generator levy to bring in money immediately and to incentivise companies to move on to contracts for difference. In terms of having to pay when solar and wind cannot be used, what the hon. Lady says would be a little more plausible if the Liberal Democrats had not sat on their hands during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That legislation will enable the energy infrastructure to be built that will bring electricity to people’s homes, lower people’s bills and give us the energy security that we want to see.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Chancellor will know that AutoTrader announced last week that, for the first time, the average cost of a new electric vehicle has fallen below the average cost of a new petrol vehicle. There has never been a better time to switch to EVs. Can the Chancellor elaborate on how these targeted announcements, and some of the changes she is making today, will support the switch to electric vehicles?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a couple of things we are doing today to make it more cost-effective to get an electric vehicle. First, the decoupling of gas and electricity prices will mean that electricity prices will not be set by high gas prices. That reduces the costs of filling up an electric vehicle with electricity. We are also making it easier for people to install electric vehicle charge points, including on their streets and in their homes. We are making solar panels more available, including in high street shops, to enable people to benefit from that cheap electricity, which they can use to power their homes and their cars.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Kevin Brewer is a domiciliary care worker from Northern Ireland. He says that he loves his job, but he drives 70 miles every day. He told the BBC this week that for the first time he considered phoning in and saying that he could not do his job. In the end, he decided to put the cost of the fuel on his credit card. Chancellor, people are suffering across the country. I invite her to meet people such as Kevin at the national fuel tax protest on Whitehall on Monday, where motorists, white van men and women, care workers and many others from across the United Kingdom will come together to ask her to take action now to cut VAT on fuel and to say that she will not increase fuel duty in September.
Rachel Reeves
Fuel duty was never lower in the 14 years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Conservative Member of Parliament than it is now. As I have said on numerous occasions, we are keeping fuel duty under review. The best way to reduce costs for people who are reliant on their cars is to de-escalate this conflict, which is the exact opposite of Reform UK’s policy. It wanted to join in this conflict and said when the conflict started that we should stand with America. I do not agree that we should be standing with America; we should be standing up for our own country and families and businesses in our country.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is important that we look at long-term measures such as decoupling gas and electricity prices, because we know that previous temporary measures have not stopped our exposure to these shocks, leading to further insecurity for residents and businesses. Can the Chancellor say how quickly households and businesses such as textile manufacturers in Huddersfield will benefit from this new pricing model? Can she say a little more about accelerating vital grid infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of people in Huddersfield. From this month, we are helping 10,000 manufacturing businesses in the industrial strategy sectors with the cost of electricity, reducing it by up to 25%. Today, we have announced that we are increasing the electricity generator levy, which will bring in more money to the Exchequer. We can use that money to help people with the costs of this war which we did not start, but of which people in Huddersfield, Leeds and around the country are feeling the consequences.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
On heating oil, members of the Chancellor’s Treasury team have been keen to point out that the small amount of funding—the equivalent of about £35 a household—was just the first step. Can she outline when the next step will come to support houses that are dependent on heating oil?
Rachel Reeves
We were pleased to be able to announce tens of millions of pounds to help people with the cost of heating oil, in the same way that we brought down gas and electricity bills for families and pensioners across the UK because of my Budget decisions last year. It is important that local authorities now make sure that that money is available to people. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), for example, that 60% of applications in Norfolk have not been processed. We need to make sure that that money gets to the people who need it. As I have said, we will keep additional support under review. The best way to bring down bills for families, businesses and pensioners—the hon. Gentleman’s party agrees with this—is to de-escalate this conflict and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is why our diplomatic policy is so important.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
According to modelling from the National Energy System Operator, gas will still set the price of electricity 30% of the time by 2030, despite most of the energy being produced from renewables. Solar and wind are far cheaper than other forms of energy, and it is right that households across the UK, and in Derbyshire Dales in particular, can benefit from the lower prices. Will the Chancellor therefore outline what steps she is taking to decouple the price of renewables from the price of gas and to drive down energy prices for homes in Derbyshire Dales?
Rachel Reeves
This is the second energy price shock caused by a lack of availability of oil and gas in just four years. It shows that we need to invest more in home-grown energy to ensure security of supply and price to help people in Derbyshire Dales and right across the country. That is why we are increasing the electricity generator levy. We are using that money to help people now, but crucially as an incentive to get electricity providers on to contracts for difference, so that we do not have to pay more for electricity just because the price of gas is high.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Chancellor said that we did not start this war and have not joined this war, and the reason for that is that this war is illegal. Iran never posed an imminent threat. Pakistan has taken valiant steps to negotiate a deal, which led to Iran opening the strait of Hormuz, but unfortunately and absurdly, Donald Trump is blocking the strait, causing a major economic crisis for everyone. I welcome the 5p cut in fuel duty and the £150 reduction in energy bills, but the reality is that they are having an insignificant impact on families, especially vulnerable families. What imminent steps will the Chancellor take to help and shield them?
Rachel Reeves
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Pakistan for the work that it is doing to de-escalate this conflict by hosting peace talks. I would expect all Members of the House to urge all parties to return to those negotiations as quickly as possible, so that we can end the bloodshed but also ensure that bills come back down for families and prices fall at the pumps. We are already taking action to reduce household energy bills through the help with heating oil. Today’s announcements on decoupling and tiebacks, and last week’s announcement on reducing business energy costs through the BIC scheme, are all things that we are doing to help families and businesses with the cost of electricity.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that economic security, energy security and national security all go hand in hand, which is why home-grown lower-carbon power that we control is so important? Can she tell us more about how small modular reactors, which are being delivered by Rolls-Royce and are backed by this Labour Government, will play their part in delivering power, security and good British jobs?
Rachel Reeves
It was great to meet Rolls-Royce apprentices with my hon. Friend in Downing Street last week to see what difference this Government’s investment in small modular reactors through the National Wealth Fund will make. The investment in nuclear is creating good jobs that pay decent wages, providing export opportunities through this new technology and, crucially, giving us energy security on both supply and price.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Just so the Chancellor is aware, my constituents in Lagan Valley did not get £150 off their electricity bills. I am sure the Chancellor knows that that is because Northern Ireland is not in the same electricity market as the rest of the UK. Even if we add together the sums that we received through the Barnett consequentials, they do not total £150. We hope that her lack of knowledge does not reflect the importance of Northern Ireland when this Government come to tackling the cost of living crisis. When will the Chancellor meet my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss how to help us through this crisis?
Rachel Reeves
Northern Ireland benefited from the Barnett consequentials, with the money going to the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Lady says, Northern Ireland is in a different electricity market. At the same time, we listened carefully to what MPs and Members of the Northern Ireland Executive said about Northern Ireland’s exposure to heating oil. When we made the support available, we did so through local authorities and locally, rather than as a national scheme, recognising the higher exposure to heating oil in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the country.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, in what I believe is truly a genuine point of order, as to how Parliament and the public should understand the terminology in “Erskine May” about inadvertently misleading the House. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out:
“The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process…that have now turned out not to be true.”
He asked:
“Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?”
The Prime Minister replied:
“No, I did not mislead the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 51.]
He then argued that other information that had been withheld from him had led to this situation.
My understanding is that giving the House wrong information, but in good faith, is precisely what is meant by inadvertently misleading the House. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that, and nor does the Foreign Secretary, to whom I asked a similar question this morning. Is it me who is misunderstanding the meaning of the term “to inadvertently mislead the House”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order, and for providing notice of it. Although Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks at the Dispatch Box, I am very clear as Chair that this is of the utmost importance and that Ministers must take their responsibilities to this House seriously. If the right hon. Member requires further advice on what may or may not constitute this House being inadvertently misled, I suggest that he follow up on the specific concerns with the Clerk of the Journals in the first instance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has left the Chamber. She did give a response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), but we have some concerns about what she has said, as I expressed to you when I came to the Chair about 15 or 20 minutes ago. The Chancellor referred to the £150 reduction, but we do not think it applies to Northern Ireland—that is our assumption. I cast my mind back to when the Prime Minister was here last Monday, when he referred to the help with home heating oil that has been given to Northern Ireland and said he would consider providing more. We had hoped that today’s announcement would ensure that those in Northern Ireland get extra help, but clearly that is not the case. I am not here to catch the Chancellor out, because it is not about that; it is about getting accuracy and honesty in the responses. What can Opposition Members do to ensure that the Chancellor can correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and for giving me some notice of it. He will have heard my earlier response. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but Ministers should take their responsibilities seriously to make sure that answers are correct. I note that representatives of the Treasury Bench are still sat there. I am sure the message will be passed back to the Chancellor, but he will have heard her response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I do not intend to continue this debate via the Chair.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe it is important to set the record straight. In response to my question, the Chancellor suggested that households in Northern Ireland got £150 off their energy bills in April. That is factually wrong and somewhat misleading, and I believe it is important that the record is set straight, because households in Northern Ireland will not see £150 off their bills like those in GB. The money received as a result of the Barnett consequentials is still sitting in the Sinn Féin Economy Minister’s departmental purse, and there has been a refusal to engage with the Treasury to get the money spent. Not only do we need the record to be set straight, but we need a plan to get the money to our constituents, who are hard pressed. Will you advise me on how I can progress this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier responses. She has most certainly put the matter firmly on the record. As I have said, the Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her and other points of order loud and clear this afternoon.
Road Surfaces (Maximum Noise Levels)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of road surfacing materials which generate in-vehicle noise levels above a specified maximum; to require the resurfacing of existing roads which generate in-vehicle noise above that maximum; and for connected purposes.
In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, everybody knows the A180. It is the road that carries people to work, to school, to hospital appointments, to our courts and back home again. It is the road that all visitors, loved ones and hopeful away fans have to take on their way into our towns. It is a road of huge economic importance. It supports industry, freight and trade, and it connects our communities to the rest of the country.
Sadly, this main artery that supports life in our town is known locally for an entirely different reason, and that is noise. It is not a minor irritation or a bit of background hum that drivers should simply learn to live with; it is a serious quality of life issue, a road safety issue, a public health concern and, increasingly, a question of whether we are prepared to accept outdated standards on roads that thousands of people rely on.
The A180 opened in 1983 as an extension to the M180. At the time, it was described as the noisiest road in the United Kingdom; more than 40 years on, the same continues to be true—the problem has not gone away. Large sections of England’s strategic road network were built with concrete in the 1960s and 1970s, and according to National Highways there are about 400 miles of concrete roads on the network, which is about 4% of England’s motorways and major A roads.
Those roads are now nearing the end of their working lives. National Highways has itself accepted that replacing them with modern road surfaces improves ride quality and reduces noise, and I welcome its concrete roads programme as a long-term plan to replace existing concrete roads with modern roads built to current standards. The A180 is exactly the kind of road that demonstrates why this programme must be delivered at top speed, and why noise must be treated as a core design standard, not an afterthought.
For well over a decade, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have presented the A180’s issues to a variety of Transport Ministers. I believe they only truly understand those issues following a trip on the road itself. Indeed, through conversation, it often becomes apparent that those Ministers have been on the road—to go to the football at Blundell Park or to visit family—and they remember that road and recall the conversations they had, or at least tried to have, at the time about just how noisy it was. I am pleased that we are now beginning to see the fruits of our labours.
I welcome the steps that Ministers have taken since the general election to address some of the issues. Last month, we saw the announcement of a £27 billion investment to fix England’s ageing roads, including full reconstruction of parts of the A180 and the M180. The works, funded through the road investment strategy 3 allocation round, will entail a full reconstruction of the A180 from Brocklesby interchange to Barnetby interchange. While that is long overdue and welcome as an intervention, the case of the A180 shows that investment alone is not enough unless noise is explicitly part of the standards we expect our roads to meet.
In July 2025, following conversations I had had with National Highways to push this issue, a close proximity road surface noise survey was carried out on the A180 between Stallingborough and Grimsby. The survey found that tyre and road noise levels on the concrete sections were generally in the range of 106 to 108 dB. While this is an external road surface measurement rather than a measurement taken inside the vehicle—and I would encourage National Highways to carry out a comparable in-vehicle study—it gives us a very clear sense of what motorists are up against. To make that tangible, 106 to 108 dB is in the same broad range as very loud machinery, a nightclub or a chainsaw.
In the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive says that employers must assess risk at 80 dB and provide hearing protection at 85 dB, and that exposure above 87 dB must not be exceeded after hearing protection is taken into account. Drivers on the A180 are sitting for up to an hour a day in an enclosed environment with the equivalent of a pneumatic drill. It is so loud that people can no longer hear anything in the vehicle, causing them to unwittingly add to it by turning up their radio, or drivers and passengers having to shout to be heard despite sitting right next to each other. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Hon. Members have turned up in their droves to listen to the hon. Lady’s ten-minute rule Bill; they might have the courtesy to listen quietly while we are hearing about road noise on the A180.
Melanie Onn
I appreciate that—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe we all need ear defenders in this place once in a while.
We have clear rules and protections for prolonged noise exposure in many workplaces because we understand that repeated exposure can damage hearing and affect health, yet when it comes to people who drive for a living—delivery, heavy goods vehicle and logistics drivers—as well as road workers and those who use this route day in and day out, we still do not properly factor road surface noise into the basic fitness of the road itself.
The outcomes of repeated and prolonged exposure to loud noise include tinnitus—a continuous tonal ringing in the ears—ranges of hearing loss or increased sensitivity to noise known as hyperacusis. The damage is almost always irreversible and cumulative. The HSE recommends that employers seek to mitigate noise exposure where possible—and if it is not possible, to provide ear protection. Of course, that is not possible inside a vehicle when all senses are required to be fully functioning to drive safely. With no mitigations that individuals or employers can take, the solution lies in the appropriate surfacing of the road.
Clearly, the Government and National Highways recognise that these outdated concrete surfaces are not fit for purpose and have a range of other problems. Addressing the remaining concrete surface roads must not be allowed to slip down the priority list. Additionally, the experiences of hundreds of thousands of drivers using the A180 over the years should serve as a case study in all future road planning, to ensure that noise levels—not just for the surrounding area, but for the journey maker—are part of the assessment of suitability.
The basic principle behind my Bill is very simple: road surfaces should be judged not only on whether they remain structurally passable, but on whether they are fit for modern use, which means safer, smoother and, yes, quieter. The Bill would create a framework for setting a maximum acceptable noise level for road surfaces. It would prevent the continued use of surfacing materials that breach that standard, and it would require existing roads that exceed it to be resurfaced. In doing so, it would finally put road noise where it belongs: at the heart of how we define a road that is fit for purpose.
Communities that contribute so much to our economy through our ports, our energy sector and our industry should not have to put up with a road famous not for being a gateway for growth, but for the deafening racket it creates every time people drive on it. I say to all relevant stakeholders that I welcome the direction of travel and the investment already being made, but on the A180 and roads like it, there is still a long road ahead.
I hope that the Government will work with National Highways, me and the affected communities to address the issues that this Bill aims to resolve, and to ensure that the roads that people depend on are not only open, but safe, modern and quiet enough to meet the standards that motorists deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Melanie Onn, Sarah Russell, Lee Pitcher, Martin Vickers and Jo Platt present the Bill.
Melanie Onn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 May, and to be printed (Bill 426).
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to today’s emergency debate, I remind the House, as I did yesterday, of the rules relating to accusations against individual Members. While certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, paragraph 21.24 of “Erskine May” makes it clear that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on a substantive motion drawn in the proper terms. Today’s debate is on a neutral motion: that the House has considered the specific matter. It is not a substantive motion. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate.
The Prime Minister personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Peter Mandelson was not just a man who had already been sacked twice from Government for lying and not just a man who had a public relationship with a convicted paedophile, but a man with links to the Kremlin and China—links so close that they were raised as red flags with the Prime Minister before his appointment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny that he knew about those links before he appointed Mandelson. He could not deny that because by his own admission he had seen the documents that proved the links. I cannot overstate how serious a matter this is. The Prime Minister sent a known security risk to Washington, to a position where he would see our most important ally’s top secret intelligence. What if he had seen something and leaked it to one of our enemies? How much would that have damaged our security partnership? We cannot even be sure that that did not happen.
What is most extraordinary is that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before vetting was complete. He did that despite a letter from the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, clearly expressing to the Prime Minister that the process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. So how can he then have claimed on the Floor of the House that the process was followed, when he knew that it had not been? The Prime Minister mentioned the word “process” more than 100 times in Parliament yesterday, but he was the one who did not follow that process.
This morning, we have heard the bombshell testimony of the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins had a long and distinguished career serving Ministers. He is not the sort of person to give us a frank personal account of how things played out last January. So when he told us today that Downing Street put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to clear Peter Mandelson, that No. 10 showed a “dismissive approach” to Mandelson’s vetting process, that it would have been “very difficult indeed” to deny clearance and that doing so would have “damaged US-UK relationships”, we know he is giving us only the slightest indication of how bad things were. And that there was actually an overwhelming drive from the Prime Minister’s office to ensure Peter Mandelson was installed as ambassador.
Sir Olly Robbins has told us that No. 10 showed no interest in the vetting—no desire to wait and ensure that due process was followed. In fact, the Cabinet Office even questioned the need for Peter Mandelson to be vetted at all: the same Cabinet Office that had discovered Mandelson’s links to Epstein, China and Russia in its due diligence—the Cabinet Office that the Minister is in charge of right now. Instead, according to Robbins,
“The focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly”,
and before the vetting even started Peter Mandelson had already been granted access to
“highly classified briefing on a case-by-case basis”.
This is what the Prime Minister calls full due process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?
Mrs Badenoch
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking.
The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done.
The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started.
And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable.
The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins?
It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear.
This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment?
As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him?
Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point.
It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else.
Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created
“one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”,
adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins
“risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”.
Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right.
The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday about the box note of 11 November 2024, in which Simon Case recommended that vetting be gone through before the appointment was made. The Prime Minister’s decision note did not include the Prime Minister’s decision, which has been redacted from the conditions of the Humble Address. Does my right hon. Friend think that the redacted information would show what the Prime Minister was trying to achieve by appointing Peter Mandelson without the appropriate vetting?
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre.
I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending.
This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved.
This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.”
How has he taken responsibility?
It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate, and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe that the sorry souls on the Government Benches should have to put their money with their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course?
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else.
The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
There are many ways of developing a culture for how to run the Government in No. 10. I was a witness to that in the years from the financial crash through to the defeat of the Labour Government—between 2008 and 2010—when I saw a Prime Minister who would never have said in Parliament or privately that there were facts of which he was unaware, because he was a man of detail. He was a man of large vision and a man who drove the state forward.
Members may disagree, as I do personally, with some of the decisions that that Prime Minister took. However, that was a different culture from those under two previous Prime Ministers—Truss, and our friend with his blond hair, who created a culture in No. 10 of the exotic. We went from the exotic to the toxic. The fact of the matter is that I did not hear Conservative Members, who are here today in great numbers, asking questions about the culture of those two Prime Ministers. They contributed to the mess that this country—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, the man is speaking, and you’ve just walked right in front of him.
Jon Trickett
Those two Prime Ministers in particular—the chaotic and the exotic—left this country in a disastrous situation. I do think that a Prime Minister who comes to the House and implies that he relies on a culture simply of process is mistaken. The Gordon Brown model, flawed as it was, will turn out to be far better than the one we have heard from this Prime Minister. I am sorry to say that, because I want to support a Labour Government who are effective, but that is the case. I saw it with my own eyes back then—I saw the vetting, the decisions, the pressure, and the tumult. I saw a Prime Minister struggling with their party to deliver a different kind of society and economy.
Let me turn to the present events and what we learned from Sir Olly today. There are a few things that matter. First, the security department tended towards refusing the vetting of Mandelson when Sir Olly first arrived, while others thought that he did not need vetting of any kind. Then, while the vetting process was going on, the Government appeared to proceed with the appointment of Mandelson, and even the King and the United States Administration were told that he would be the ambassador.
The British state then conspired to deliver a positive vetting outcome, because that is what they believed the Government wanted. It was expressed in repeated phone calls from the private office in No. 10, which I was very familiar with in the years I served in government, to Sir Olly’s private office. The witness we saw this morning looked credible and made a very serious case that he was under pressure to proceed.
Jon Trickett
No, I will make progress; there are many Members on both sides wanting to speak. The hon. Member may well be pleased with some of the things I am going to say. I am developing an argument, and I want to proceed with it.
The question I have not heard answered is why a group of people in No. 10—possibly the Prime Minister as well—felt that that level of pressure should be placed on the Foreign Office in favour of appointing Mandelson. There are two possible answers, but I will focus on one. The political unit in No. 10, possibly the Prime Minister too, wanted Mandelson because he was their close political ally and because he was plugged into a vast international network of what we might call the billionaire class. The truth is that much of the nexus of wealth that Mandelson was plugged into—so was the US President, by the way—was centred around Epstein. Let me pause for a second to say that none of these facts would have emerged were it not for the courage, bravery and resistance of the women who were treated so appallingly on Epstein island.
Getting Mandelson into Washington as part of that network—a political network of billionaires—was of the highest priority. All this leaves a bad taste. The Government promised the people change, but the change that they sought was to further accelerate the integration of the British state and Government into the networks of the richest people. People in our country—certainly those in my constituency—did not vote for that. They wanted change in their ordinary lives: a better NHS, improvements to the cost of living and so on. We have a long way to go to deliver that. What we have delivered is a disaster with the appointment of Mandelson.
I have raised the question of unemployment four times in recent months. There is growing unemployment in our area. It is hard to see how the time that the Government spent ingratiating themselves to Washington helped the unemployed and poor.
Just think about Mandelson’s involvement with Russian and Chinese business. So obnoxious is China supposed to be that this place has banned all Chinese-based networks, as though they were the agencies of an enemy state. How can it be that Mandelson’s links were seen to be of such low risk? This House has spent literally hours discussing the appalling behaviour of Putin and Russia in relation to eastern Europe. All these things should have counted against Mandelson, but when they were weighed in the balance, they counted less than the opportunity that Mandelson offered of access to a network of people, which included the US President.
I will make one final point. Mandelson played a key role in a faction that sought to change the strategic direction of the Labour party and the Government. The truth is that they wanted to change the Labour party into something it never was.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making an excellent and important speech. Is he aware that most of Labour Together’s supporters and, as I understand it, bankrollers had nothing whatsoever to do with the traditions of the Labour movement and that the organisation was merely using a name in order to try to change the nature of the Labour party away from its traditional socialist objectives?
Jon Trickett
I have spoken in a previous debate about Labour Together, so I will let the right hon. Member’s comments stand for themselves.
This was a faction that sought to change the Labour party into something that it never was. If we continue down the path that has been chosen, I fear that we will be in a downward spiral from which we will not escape.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by reflecting on something that I feel, along with many Members across the House and, certainly, our constituents? That is how utterly depressing it is that we are having to have this debate at all. Just a few years after we went through all this under Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, and less than two years after the British people voted them out of office for indulging in this sort of chaos and distraction, here we are again.
Vladimir Putin is waging war on our continent. Donald Trump is waging war with Iran. We desperately need to strengthen our own national defences. Families and businesses are struggling against a cost of living crisis. Petrol prices have soared, and people are really worried about what Trump’s war will mean for their holidays this summer and their energy and food bills this winter. Our NHS is still in crisis. We all have constituents who are waiting weeks to see a GP, people who are dying on corridors in our hospitals, and loved ones who are not getting the care they need. We should be talking about them today. Theirs are the problems that the Government should be focused on every single day.
That is what Labour promised, after all. In their manifesto, they said that the problems in our country are a
“direct result of a governing party that, time and again, puts its own interests and obsessions above the issues that affect families.”
They promised to change that, but here we are again. Instead of fixing the NHS and social care, instead of properly funding our defence, and instead of cutting prices at the pump, here we are, having to ask why the Prime Minister appointed the close friend of a notorious paedophile sex trafficker to one of the most important and sensitive jobs in his Government.
Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been well reported and highlighted to the Prime Minister. He had already been forced to resign in disgrace twice from the previous Labour Government, and we now know that he was deemed a national security risk by the Government’s vetting agency. So we do, sadly, have to ask: why did the Prime Minister appoint Mandelson? Why did he announce the appointment before the national security vetting had been done, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Simon Case having told him that that should happen first? And why was he so determined to get Mandelson in post that he created, as Olly Robbins described it this morning, “an atmosphere of pressure” and a certain dismissiveness about the developed vetting process—a vetting process that the Prime Minister has since blamed for his mistakes?
Even after all this, even after yesterday’s statement, the Prime Minister still has not told us why he appointed Mandelson. He admitted that appointing Mandelson was a mistake and has apologised for it. He has tried to make the rest about process and officials, but he still has not answered the fundamental question: why?
I think we know a big part of the answer, do we not? It is Donald Trump. This all comes back to the way that the Prime Minister decided to approach his relationship with the President when he returned to office last year. Our party urged the Prime Minister to stand up to Trump, to stand together with our allies, and to approach him from a position of strength, not weakness. But he chose the opposite course. He decided to try to appease Trump, to flatter him, to stroke his ego, and to hope that he will be nice to us in return. Clearly, he thought that Peter Mandelson was the man for that job. So that is it: the decision to try to curry favour with Trump instead of standing up to him is the original sin that has landed the Prime Minister and his Government in the mess they are in today. Has it worked? Absolutely not.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend was right to ask that question yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister’s response, which was that those types of meetings had not been recorded, was totally inadequate.
Despite all the flattery, Trump has still caused enormous damage to our economy and to the livelihoods of the British people with his tariffs and his war with Iran. Trump still undermines NATO, makes threats against our country and our allies, and insults Britain’s armed forces. Just look at what Trump said last night: that Mandelson was a “really bad pick”. I will not dwell on the hypocrisy of those words from a man who was close friends with Epstein, who partied with him and has so far taken no responsibility for that—those words from a President who still has as his Commerce Secretary a neighbour of Epstein who visited Epstein’s island and who lied about his relationship with him. All that is for another debate.
But Trump’s post, hypocritical as it is, does show the futility of trying to appease him. It shows how pointless it is to make a decision like who to appoint as US ambassador based on what Trump would like most. It does not work—it has not worked. I hope that on top of everything else, the Prime Minister and the Labour party will reflect on that point. The approach to Trump has failed. It is time to change course, to stand up to him, and to stand with our European and Commonwealth allies in defence of our national interest.
This is a mess of the Government’s own making. It is a mess born out of a futile attempt to appease Donald Trump. It is a mess that just keeps getting worse with today’s revelation, uncovered by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), that the Prime Minister pushed for the appointment as ambassador of another Labour crony with ties to a sex offender. Those catastrophically bad judgments have created a mess that has distracted and consumed the Government and stopped them from focusing on what the British people actually need.
The people out there do not want more Westminster drama; they are thinking about the hospital appointment that keeps being pushed back, the mortgage payments that just seem to keep going up, the loved ones who need care but are stuck on a waiting list, and the threats to our national security from an ever more dangerous world. Those are the things that keep people up at night, and they deserve a Prime Minister and a Government who are focused on them.
Our party will never stop making that case. We will never stop holding the Government to account, not for the sake of political point scoring but on behalf of the British people, who deserve better than this. The last Conservative Government failed our country by getting stuck in a cycle of chaos and scandal and refusing to move on. The question for the Labour party is whether it will repeat that mistake or finally deliver the change that our country needs.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States.
There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid.
Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Matt Western
In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Matt Western
I want to allow others in.
The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Bernard, please, you are permanently standing in my line of vision. The hon. Member will give way when he wants to, not because you are standing up.
Matt Western
I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things.
I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend. I was simply addressing the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that the operation at No. 10 was the worst in living memory. It is quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We have had two very recent examples, in 2019-22 and then 2022-23, under Johnson and Truss.
I want to make it quite clear that the way I see it, the mistake that may have been made by No. 10 is the clear delegation to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, who was at the heart of an inner circle in No. 10 that no longer exists of Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle. As has come to light just this morning, Matthew Doyle was also part of the problem.
Paul Holmes
There must be a reshuffle coming, because no one would seriously make a speech like this at such serious times. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister was a stickler for process and claims that the Prime Minister somehow delegated responsibility for the appointment. Why did the former Cabinet Secretary—the chief adviser to the Prime Minister and chief civil servant—give that advice in the box note? Will the hon. Gentleman defend the Prime Minister’s decision not to follow that advice from the person who was making the decisions?
Matt Western
I am not close to those operations. I have never been a Minister—that is the honest truth—and to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I do not wish to be one either. I am not close enough to that, so I cannot answer that honestly, but what I can say is that I heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning about how he was leant on and also what documents he may have had access to, including the vetting report.
What we have heard today is that the chief of staff leant on the Foreign Office, whether it was about Matthew Doyle or the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That is the issue. The Prime Minister, in my experience of having known him since 2017, is absolutely as straight as a die. He may have accepted the advice and maybe that advice has now proven to be wrong, but he has been let down by those around him. He made a mistake. He understands and has accepted that.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”:
“‘I want the truth.’
‘You can’t handle the truth!’”
The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person.
Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling.
“By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”
The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast.
Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference.
The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
This is probably a useful speech to intervene on, due to my striking resemblance to Tom Cruise. [Laughter.] The key point in that scenario was about responsibility. Labour Members are probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today, otherwise they might be under another transport mechanism. Does this not show more widely that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions he is charged to take?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.
Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely there can be no situation where the hon. Gentleman thinks officials should not flag concerns with Ministers or Prime Ministers, who are fundamentally accountable to this House and to the British public. What we are talking about here is accountability.
Dr Evans
Accountability starts from the top. We have heard from the FCDO today that the message from No. 10 was to “Get this f***ing done”. That was the political directive and everything else followed suit. That is exactly what Olly Robbins has said.
We on the Conservative Benches know the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is whether Labour Back Benchers can handle the truth. Surely if they cannot, they must do something about it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Just to help the House, given how many people we have to speak, I suggest an informal time limit of seven minutes, and Carolyn Harris will set a good example of that.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
I will be very brief, as I am not attempting to audition for a BAFTA, unlike some colleagues. Neither am I trying to attempt any factional point scoring, as some colleagues have done today. The Prime Minister himself said yesterday that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador to the US, so let me ask simply this: can the Chief Secretary tell the House how the Prime Minister has changed the way due diligence and security vetting will be conducted before appointments are announced in the future?
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable.
One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador.
Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks. Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile.
Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships.
When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk. Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started.
Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am not in the Peter Mandelson fan club—I am old enough to remember his first life in government—but this morning we heard that UKVS had judged him to be a borderline risk and that officials thought that that risk could be managed. That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman is outlining.
David Davis
That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—
David Davis
No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down.
No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique.
Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew. It is as plain as a pikestaff.
So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson once spoke of the Labour left being sealed in a tomb. Today, it is the toxic politics he came to represent that should be buried—politics that repels millions and that is far from the values on which our party was founded. If we are serious about renewal and about learning the lessons of this troubling episode, we must confront the culture that enabled it. That means looking at figures such as the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Mandelson, and at the network of influence around him.
Mandelson’s appointment did not happen in isolation, as we have learned today. It reflects a wider direction under the Prime Minister, where those behind the Labour Together project wielded significant influence in developing the toxic culture that has been allowed to take hold of No. 10 and the governing of our country. It points to a political culture that lacks candour, that exists to promote wealth and power, and that ignores all else in pursuit of them. It is a culture where proximity to power outweighs principle, where access counts far more than accountability, and where the suffering of victims is overshadowed by connections. When decisions are driven by patronage and power is concentrated in an inner circle, it is not only our internal party democracy that suffers, but the integrity of our public institutions and our country. Too often, it is our civil servants—those who serve with professionalism and integrity—who are left to carry the consequences.
I commend Sir Olly Robbins for giving evidence today. His professionalism and dedication, after a week in which he has been publicly hounded by some in government, were commendable, and it was good to see his trade union backing him steadfastly at the Committee today. Robbins will be a loss to the FCDO and the country, and it was all brought about by a series of catastrophic political decisions by No. 10. That is not right, not fair and not what the public expect of elected officials. Because of that, the public will rightly demand accountability and cultural change. That must begin with a thorough review of the political operation which brought the Prime Minister to power and which clearly continues to carry undue influence over this Government.
As I have done on multiple occasions in both letters to the Prime Minister and speeches in this place, I once again call for a full, transparent and independent investigation into the activities and practices of Labour Together, both prior to and after the election of this Government. Only then will we fully understand how this exclusive political network has been able to undermine our democracy and institutions right at the heart of Government.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Like many, I spent the weekend door-knocking in my constituency. People in Bicester and Woodstock are frustrated by delays to medical appointments, fed up with rising prices and fearful about the war in the middle east. Yet a number of them raised the Prime Minister’s handling of the Peter Mandelson saga. Their overwhelming emotions were disappointment that a Prime Minister who promised change has delivered so little, and anger that a Prime Minister who said he would be better than the Tories has failed so badly.
The Prime Minister set out yesterday to defend himself. He set out the case like a barrister. He took the narrow view that the charge was misleading the House and tried to claim that Sir Olly Robbins had repeatedly misled him, and so it was only natural that he should have misled us. He failed first by misjudging the seriousness of his failure. It was as though he was charged with petty larceny when the actual offence was gross misconduct decapitation.
Yet the crucial weakness in the Prime Minister’s argument was one of chronology. He cited statements and reports between September 2025 and April 2026, but the crime he sought to defend was committed between December 2024 and January 2025. He had no answer to why he ignored the advice of the Cabinet Secretary to seek security clearance before appointing Mandelson. He could not explain why he announced Mandelson’s appointment without conditions, nor why the offer letter to Mandelson dated before Sir Olly started work said that Mandelson had cleared security clearance.
The damning evidence given today by Sir Olly Robbins confirms what the Prime Minister failed to dispel yesterday: there was a complacent culture in Downing Street—indeed, there may still be—which had a dismissive approach to the vetting of Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister wants us now to believe that he would have sacked Mandelson if he had failed vetting, yet all of the evidence then showed that he and his team did not care about vetting and even believed it had already been granted.
We further learned this morning that officials in No. 10 asked the FCDO to find an ambassadorial role for Matthew Doyle—another man who was friends with a convicted sex offender. What is worse, they told FCDO officials not to tell the Foreign Secretary. The unavoidable conclusion is that under the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney, No. 10 believed that it could fix plum jobs for the boys—and they were all boys—with casual disregard for process, propriety and national security.
We come to the consequences of this sorry episode. First, a distinguished civil servant has lost his position as the fall guy for the Prime Minister. I was proud to work with Sir Olly, and I know the regard in which he is held by Ministers and civil servants, so I am frankly furious—to use the word of the day—to learn that a No. 10 spokesman has just said that Sir Olly was a
“man of integrity and professionalism”
who made an “error of judgment”. It is extraordinary that when political appointees like Peter Mandelson or the former Deputy Prime Minister are accused of errors of judgment, or worse, the Prime Minister has come to that Dispatch Box and defended them for days, yet when the Prime Minister’s error of judgment was highlighted again, he took a few short hours to dismiss Sir Olly.
In the last five days, the Prime Minister has gone further and directed the full power of the state against one man. The Government Legal Service reinterpreted the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 on Sunday. The Government Communication Service briefed hard against Robbins, and Cabinet Office officials sought to prime the Foreign Affairs Committee before it heard from Sir Olly today. This state-led assault on one man is unprecedented, and it is unacceptable. If the consequence of committing an error of judgment is to resign, why is the Prime Minister still in post?
Secondly, this whole episode has done grave damage to relations between Ministers and civil servants. The Prime Minister once said that when staff
“made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff”.
No one believes that now. His cowardly reaction has shown civil servants that they should be fearful of future treatment by the Prime Minister, No. 10 and Ministers. I believed that the Prime Minister, as a former permanent secretary, understood and valued the relationship of trust, candour and loyalty that governs the best relationship in Ministries. Today those relationships are shattered, and our country will be the poorer for it.
Thirdly, my constituents and people up and down the country who are worried about waiting lists, rising prices and threats to security can have no confidence that this Prime Minister can change our country for the better. When something went wrong in Government, the Prime Minister did not take responsibility; he took the easy way out. When called on to defend himself, he failed abjectly. This sorry tale points to a corrupted culture at the heart of No. 10, and there is now only one man left to carry the can. He must complete the clear-out and resign.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I have come from the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting this morning, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. I want to use my speech to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard that I think are relevant.
Before I start, I absolutely agree with Members across the House who say that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that there has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up in his appointment and in the vetting. However, it is important that we look at what Sir Olly said in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said in the House.
The first important thing that Sir Olly said is that no Minister—not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister—or any official in No. 10 was given sight of the fact that UKSV had declined Mandelson’s security vetting. They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. He said that, justified that and defended that. No officials or Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I went through that process myself when I worked at the Foreign Office, and we do not want to create any conditions that make people afraid to share sensitive information in the vetting process, thinking that at some point in the future it might be leaked, whether to politicians, to others in the line management chain or, as we have seen, to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. That reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
Secondly, Sir Olly disputed the characterisation that UKSV had failed Peter Mandelson’s vetting: that it was in some way a binary choice inside the Foreign Office. It is important that we explain—or that I try to justify—what Sir Olly was saying, because the FCDO has a slightly different process from that of other parts of Government. It is an overseas Department—a bit like the Ministry of Defence, for example—so people with seriously long careers and all sorts of different interests come into those roles. I am not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed vetting, not at all, but it is not unusual for the FCDO rather than UKSV to make a decision on a borderline case. According to Sir Olly’s evidence, that is a normal process. It is important that we hold to that in future.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.
Alex Ballinger
I can speak only to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. Many Members made the same case that the right hon. Gentleman is making now: that it was a red box case, as we have seen in the evidence submitted. However, Sir Olly was clear that this was a borderline case, and it is usual for the Foreign Office to conduct such cases. The right hon. Gentleman can make up his own mind about whether to believe Sir Olly or other people.
David Davis
I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.
Alex Ballinger
I had a different interpretation. Sir Olly also said—we can look back at the transcript—that, yes, there was pressure from No. 10 to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that the Government wanted to get the appointment done before President Trump’s inauguration—there was an important timeline by which to do it—because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered with. Again, these are the words of Sir Olly; I am not bringing this up from nowhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Ballinger
Let me finish.
The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I say gently to my hon. Friend, and to others who seek to make the same argument, that at the heart of this matter is a toxic and dismissive culture at No. 10—we cannot get away from that point. That dismissiveness has led us to this place. This is not a small administrative breach; it is a matter of national security. The British public is not buying it. Surely, there needs to be a full, transparent and independent inquiry on this whole situation that uncovers the truth and leads to consequences, including for the Prime Minister. That is what the British public want.
Alex Ballinger
That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it.
I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again.
I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened carefully to his speech. Given what he heard at the Committee this morning and his background and experience, does he regret Olly Robbins’s sacking?
Alex Ballinger
Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment.
I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue.
I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is important that the hon. Member winds up, because I said seven minutes, and he has now taken 10 minutes.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Member realise that to people outside, this argument—these fine details of process—morphs into a defence of ignorance and then into a defence of incompetency? That is actually doing the Prime Minister as much harm as all these arguments about his honesty.
Alex Ballinger
We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is a particularly sorry saga. It is corrosive for not just this Government and the Labour party, but the entire political class and politicians as a collective body and it is certainly corrosive for the country. That is because a theme has emerged from this episode and others under this Government around competency—or what the public would probably see as a general theme of incompetency.
It is frankly ludicrous and laughable that we have got to this point. For the best part of two decades, Peter Mandelson’s name has been a byword for sleaze and incompetence, and that is before we knew about the risks that he could continue to pose to our national security if he were given a position. The corrosiveness of this Government and their incompetency is borne out in all the decisions they have U-turned over—I think we are up to 18 U-turns in two years. We have seen the corrosive effects of Government policy across the board, whether it is on the economy or on the price that businesses are paying, as a result of questions that the Government have not asked. That begs the question about the Prime Minister’s general incuriosity about seemingly everything—least of all this, the most serious of issues.
Peter Mandelson was known to be a paedophile-adjacent character at the time that the Prime Minister took the decision, seemingly at any cost, to appoint him as ambassador to the United States. As many Members have said, it seems that that happened because he was seen as a particularly slick operator at the top of the Labour party, and he was seemingly untouchable to so many. It is a great shame that it has got to this point, with this ongoing debacle and scandal, and the Prime Minister’s evasion, to cause the downfall of Peter Mandelson.
Unanswered questions remain, including a really simple one that has been asked many times, although we have not had an answer. I would love to know, as would my constituents and many in this House, what seemingly virtuous qualities of Peter Mandelson warranted the on-balance very serious risk that the Government took in pursuing his appointment.
The pressure placed on the Foreign Office when clearing and appointing Mandelson has become apparent over the past few weeks, particularly this morning following the testimony of Olly Robbins, and it is frankly reprehensible. We heard that Olly Robbins was told to get that done at any cost: effectively to ride roughshod over good moral conduct to deliver the will of the Prime Minister. We are starting to hear glimmers that certain people at the top of Government—perhaps in the Cabinet—advised the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office that they were not comfortable with that, but the Prime Minister was completely ignorant of it throughout the whole process.
We now know that Peter Mandelson was effectively appointed and given access to sensitive security information before his security clearance was granted. I have a direct question for the Minister: is he aware of whether Peter Mandelson had access to sensitive information prior to the security clearance recommendation coming through? If the Minister is not aware of that, what review is being put in place to ascertain the level of that information, and what risk management will be put in place to mitigate the effects of the exposure of any sensitive information that Peter Mandelson may have obtained before the security clearance came through?
There is another question of accountability. Many of us in the House, and people in the country at large, would love to know why the bar of personal accountability is so low for everyone else, yet impossibly high for the Prime Minister. If I had had the chance yesterday—lots of Members wanted to speak and I understand why I did not get an opportunity—I would have loved to have asked the Prime Minister whether he had considered resigning at any point, and if not, why not.
How many more people have to be blamed or scapegoated before this becomes a situation where the Prime Minister does the decent thing and resigns? How many more twists and turns does this saga have to follow before the Prime Minister does the right thing? I can tell the Minister—he is looking somewhat uncomfortable; I commend him for coming to the Front Bench today—that my constituents are sick and tired of the evasiveness of this Prime Minister. They want him to do the decent thing and to resign.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.
The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.
At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.
It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.
Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.
Gurinder Singh Josan
No, I will not.
While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.
Imran Hussain
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?
Gurinder Singh Josan
In a bit.
I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.
Imran Hussain
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I have a better understanding of the culture in No. 10 than my hon. Friend does. I absolutely expect that the British public understand that the apology put forward by the Prime Minister has been full and unequivocal and that he has not messed about on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gurinder Singh Josan
I will take more interventions in a few minutes.
On every occasion when an allegation has been levelled, whether in relation to Peter Mandelson or the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the approach of this Prime Minister and this Government has been in marked contrast to the approach taken by successive Tory Prime Ministers. We saw then a real refusal to accept that allegations were valid. We saw a refusal to address allegations in a timely fashion by referring them for investigation. Investigations were dragged out and there was a refusal to accept their findings.
In the case of Peter Mandelson, as information about the allegations has have been forthcoming, the Prime Minister has come to the Dispatch Box again and again. He sacked Peter Mandelson, and he has taken action again and again. That action has been robust and speedy, and the ongoing commitment to the Humble Address will ensure full transparency. That is in marked contrast to how the previous Government handled such matters.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about full transparency, and the ministerial code says that Ministers must be “open and transparent”. When the Prime Minister came to the House in February and said that the reason he sacked Mandelson was because he had lied to him about his relationship with Epstein, was that a full and transparent account of the reasons why Mandelson should not have had the job?
Gurinder Singh Josan
The Prime Minister presented the House with the information that he had at that time. Further questions about that should be directed to the Prime Minister. Fundamentally, the Government will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, who, over a number of years, presided over the trampling of trust and confidence in politicians and in this House into the ground again and again.
While I suspect that this House has not seen the last of the Peter Mandelson issue, I am hopeful that the change in approach towards allegations taken by this Prime Minister and this Government, moving towards transparency, timeliness and robust action, is one that will continue in the future. There is a lesson there for all of us.
Finally, I want to address the vetting process. I believe strongly that the vetting process followed by Government and Departments should be robust and should have the confidence of those subject to vetting, as well as the Departments employing them, their colleagues and the wider public. Clearly, to maintain that confidence requires a high degree of anonymity and confidence in that process.
It is also the case that any information thrown up as part of that vetting process is acted on appropriately by Government or by Departments in a timely fashion, but there is a fundamental dilemma in expecting the Government, or the Prime Minister in this case, to act on information that was never made available to Government or Ministers. That is the fundamental issue here. We need to ensure that the vetting system is fit for purpose, and a balance between confidentiality and response at the appropriate level is essential. The current balance is clearly not correct, and I welcome the steps being taken by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in that regard.
Let me end by saying that this whole episode has exposed issues of judgment and process, and I suspect that the debate will long continue in relation to both. There is much to commend in the judgment taken by the Administration as information became available. Whatever the merits of the case, and whatever people feel about what is being discussed, I hope that some of those approaches in relation to transparency, timeliness and robust action will continue.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth.
This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary.
This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The role of Prime Minister is the highest honour in UK politics and demands sound judgment. The reality is that there was no sound judgment when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson—a disgraced individual who had two resignations and well-documented associations with a sex offender. What we are hearing from Members on the Labour Benches today is like hearing lambs to the slaughter. They are defending the indefensible, and the general public are hearing that and hearing how disgraced this place is by the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister.
Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that
“I took over as PUS on 20 January”,
and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.”
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out.
All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken.
Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made.
Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way.
I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I will reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made: I wish I had never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he was sacked. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise on the issue, which I admit I do not have.
Yesterday, in my question to the Prime Minister in his statement, I focused on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but I briefly mentioned the issue of other parties seeking to gain political capital. Much to the chagrin of the reasonable, quiet people of this country, those parties asked for the Prime Minister’s resignation, yet again causing chaos, to which the Opposition are so addicted, for the governance of this country. [Interruption.] The Opposition grumbled at that, as they are doing now, so I will take this opportunity to clarify.
If we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of the billionaire-owned right-wing press, we see that the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, “I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing.” They are grateful that this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I was a teacher; I can out-talk anyone. Those people are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict that the Opposition would have immediately joined.
People value a stable Government who focus on the matters that they really care about. They want a stabilised economy. They want reform to special education needs and disabilities and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and girls tackled. People are fed up of politics and of this navel-gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it, and why?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Gardner
I promise I will come to the hon. Member in a minute. I am in the flow. People are tired after 14 years of the previous Government chopping and changing Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. We had the blonde bumbler and the loopy lettuce. This country was on its knees, its people exhausted. The people do not want more of the same. Despite the Opposition’s constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos.
Dr Chowns
In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?
Dr Gardner
Polls can generate different answers depending on how the questions are formed. In other polls the Prime Minister is still a lot more popular than certain other Members present in this House.
In reference to the Opposition’s chaos, I will speak up for the civil service and express empathy for Sir Olly Robbins. In the whirl of Prime Ministers and Ministers under the previous Government, among the covid partying and profiteering—for which the Conservatives have never apologised, and for which I will never forgive them—the civil service clearly did its best to stop this country sinking into the mire. In such chaotic conditions, it is no wonder that a culture developed that decisions would be made without fully informing Ministers or Prime Ministers. That was partially because under the Conservatives, civil servants could not be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.
Dr Johnson
I think the remaining people who want Starmer to remain the Prime Minister are those who are worried about who the Labour party might pick instead. The hon. Lady seems to be sharing all sorts of whataboutery information, but has she considered that the outrage is not manufactured? It is a huge national security concern that our ambassador, who had access to security information at the highest level, was a security risk to this country.
Dr Gardner
I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.
Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.
Dr Gardner
I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.
It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.
Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.
The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday saying,
“I will now set out the full timeline”,—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.]
and later insisting that he had come to
“give the full account to the House”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 28.]
That followed Downing Street’s acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled Members. Yesterday was meant to be the great clean-up—the day of the full facts, full candour and full accountability.
Today, Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and published a letter that blows a hole straight through the Prime Minister’s version of events. Many hon. Members have already exposed that. Obviously, the lack of curiosity on behalf of the Prime Minister was inexplicable and reprehensible. We have seen evasion, obfuscation and blame shifting, as well as blatant contradictions, and I want to point out one that has not yet surfaced this afternoon. The Prime Minister said that he was “astonished”, and that it was “incredible”, that information could have been withheld from him, but it is significant that Sir Olly Robbins’s letter says that the position conveyed to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2025—that
“Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome”—
was “agreed with” the Cabinet Office and No. 10. In other words, the Prime Minister is now trying to dump the entire scandal on one official for acting on a position that Downing Street itself had signed off. That is not accountability; that is a stich-up.
Worse still, we learned today that, before Sir Olly even took over, due diligence on Mandelson’s appointment had been completed, approval had been given by His Majesty, the appointment had been announced, agrément had been secured from the United States, Mandelson had building and IT access, and he was already receiving highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. We have even learned that the Cabinet Office itself raised whether developed vetting was necessary, and the FCDO had to insist on it. So let us drop the pretence that this was some neutral, pristine process derailed by one mandarin misconducting himself. The appointment was politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure.
Of course the Prime Minister’s position is untenable, as many Members have said, but it is possible that the Prime Minister’s honesty or position is not the most important thing about this saga. What matters even more is our system of government, for which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is partly responsible. If the Prime Minister has been surprised to find that the civil service acts within processes that screen Ministers from information and from the power to make decisions, no one else is surprised about that. I think the Prime Minister has spent so long as a civil servant and then as a politician behaving like a civil servant that, when he finds that the system does not work, he has a sort of professional breakdown and starts spluttering about process and reviews, and reviews of the processes. Yes, we need process, but the fact is that appointments, like everything else the Government do, are political decisions.
Politics is simply the management of the common life of the community, and the management of trade-offs between different ideas and interests. We in this country have developed over many years a model of doing things—of doing politics—that is or was the best in the world: civil servants accountable to Ministers accountable to Parliament accountable to the public. Break those links of accountability, and instead of a hierarchy with the public at the top, ultimately in charge through the ballot box, and civil servants at the bottom—genuinely the servants of the democratically elected masters—we have unaccountable civil servants at the top, Ministers floundering around as this lot are, Parliament is pointless and the public are outraged.
What has to change is the great restoration of the principle that the civil service serves the public, and it does that by respecting the ultimate responsibility of Ministers as decision makers. It is absurd to have rules that shield the decision makers from the information they need to make a decision, and no other organisation would do that. This is why we need to restore the Armstrong principle set out by Robert Armstrong in 1985:
“The civil service…has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 129W.]
Yes, I want to see the back of this Prime Minister, but most of all I want to dismantle the cabal of permanent secretaries who run this country and to restore the proper authority of Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am going to try to get more Members in to speak, so I am reducing the informal time limit to four minutes.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to start with a point of inquiry which I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be able to answer in his response later, so he has time to look into it if he does not know the answer already. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney
“passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 43.]
I am not sure that the House thinks we got a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but even if at some point Morgan McSweeney did get clearance, I am sure the House would be horrified if that happened long after he started working in Downing Street and after he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. It would be good to get a date for when Morgan McSweeney got his security clearance and to confirm whether he handled any materials prior to that for which he did not have appropriate clearance. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot find an answer to that question by the time he responds, perhaps he could answer in writing by the end of the week, given the urgency of this matter.
The situation we are in of course raises questions about process, and process is important, but let us not make the mistake of thinking that this is not fundamentally political. Politics drove this: what was unusual about the appointment of Mandelson was that it was a political appointment. It is not standard for the ambassador to the United States to be a political appointment. Whatever Peter Mandelson is and was—I have my own opinions on that—he was not a career civil servant. He had been up to other things, so the security vetting was clearly very important indeed. The fact that this was a fundamentally political decision by the Prime Minister, driven as well by Morgan McSweeney, is evidenced by the fact that everyone here knows that the Prime Minister would not have signed off someone with Peter Mandelson’s record to stand as a Labour candidate for a town council. Yet he was eased into the incredibly important position of ambassador to the United States of America.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. This is about fairness in society. We tell everybody else outside of here, who we make the rules for, to play by the rules, but when you are in here yourself and you are the chief man, you can do what you want. That is what flies in the face of what the vast majority of the public think. Does he agree?
Richard Burgon
I totally agree with the hon. Member; she makes a powerful point. That is why the public are so outraged.
It was a political appointment. The reason the Prime Minister was so grateful to Mandelson was the role that he and Morgan McSweeney had played, through the organisation Labour Together, in getting him to be the leader of the Labour party. What was it that made them think Peter Mandelson was such a wise political appointment? It was because of what Peter Mandelson represented. Peter Mandelson epitomised the idea that the role of the Labour party is not what it was set up to do—to be a voice for working-class people and the trade union movement, speaking truth to power and changing society in the interests of the many not the few—but to be, as an organisation, closer and closer to the super-rich and powerful. It was because of Mandelson’s proximity to the super-rich and powerful that he was appointed to the role.
That is what has led to decisions that have made the Prime Minister and the Government unpopular. That is what has led to decisions such as the cut to the winter fuel payment and the cuts to disability benefits. The vision Mandelson put forward is polluting our party. That is why we need a full and independent investigation into Labour Together, the organisation favoured by Mandelson and McSweeney, which has dragged this party through the gutter. We see certain nefarious practices, tested in our party in opposition, now brought into Government. That needs to change, because otherwise we will end up with despair, leading to the election of a Trump-style Government in this country led by Reform—something that no decent person in this House should want to happen.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I first crossed paths with the Prime Minister when he and I were both working to improve the way our country deals with cases of child sexual exploitation. One of the principles that was enshrined in law across our society as a result of that was accountability—the golden thread between the leaders, managerial and political, and those who follow their instructions. It was very clear that if you led an organisation where mistakes were made and if you ignored the warnings, you were accountable. If you created a culture in which those warnings were not properly shared, you were accountable. It is not at all clear why the Prime Minister, given all he learned and all he did in those days, has decided to abandon that position.
It was said of the Prime Minister:
“Pretty much the first time I’ve seen him angry was when he commissioned the…report. He was angry because he did not know. He wondered why the escalation process did not permit the case to be referred up to his office.”
Those words do not refer to anything to do with Peter Mandelson. They date to the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed against Jimmy Savile. However, those words in The Guardian could refer exactly to the matter we are debating today. I gently say to Government Members that while past performance is not a guide to the future, this is a Prime Minister who has form in deploying exactly this defence when caught out.
I cannot let this debate pass without raising an issue that is of great concern to my many constituents who work at HMS Warrior, the Northwood Headquarters base on the edge of my constituency. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out, as a result of the Prime Minister’s dismissive attitude to vetting and the pressure he placed on officials, an individual was given access to intelligence on which my constituents rely to keep them safe when they undertake operations at a very high level of personal risk for the benefit and long-term interests of this country. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to accept any accountability for the risk at which his decision may have placed my constituents and their loved ones, as well as so many other people who serve our country.
I hope the Minister will be able to give the House an unambiguous assurance on behalf of the Prime Minister that whatever was shared with the Prime Minister and with Ministers, the necessary minimum risk mitigations were put in place, so that we can at least be confident that this Government thought to try to keep my constituents and those who serve our country safe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but where was that sense of responsibility when he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson? Where was that sense of responsibility when he actively chose to ignore information that was already in the public domain?
This morning, the Energy Secretary said,
“Prime Ministers make errors. Prime Ministers are fallible. Prime Ministers are human”,
but I am struggling to understand how the gravity of the misjudgment in this political appointment can be explained away by simple human error. This was not a split-second judgment or a decision made of urgent necessity under pressure in the heat of the moment; instead, it was a deliberate, considered political appointment made in full knowledge of the political priorities involved. Morgan McSweeney even swore it through.
What is more, Government Members were given lines to take yesterday, prompting them to quote a victim of Epstein in defence of the Prime Minister. The suffering of Epstein’s victims was of no consequence to the Government when Mandelson was appointed; they weighed it in the scales and found which side they wanted to come down on.
In truth, it is thanks to the bravery of victims such as Virginia Giuffre that Epstein’s crimes are even in the public domain. Her sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said this of Mandelson’s sacking last year:
“Our governments have allowed these people to hold their status and their title without shame…It’s unfair we continuously pull these skeletons out, that survivors have to continuously point the finger for us to do the right thing.”
These were women and children who were trafficked and abused by a network of men who acted with the confidence that they were untouchable—too powerful to be challenged and too protected ever to be brought down. It truly raises the uncomfortable question of whether Peter Mandelson’s familiarity with that world was treated as a skillset rather than a red flag. Was he chosen precisely because he was comfortable rubbing shoulders with the sort of men who shared private jets with Epstein, rather than in spite of it? How can the Prime Minister now express sympathy for the victims of crimes committed by a man whose closest associate he chose to elevate? How can he claim to share their pain when he made the very decision that caused them such distress?
Just this morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Downing Street asked the Foreign Office to find a senior diplomatic role for the Prime Minister’s then communications chief, Matt Doyle, even though Doyle had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. This is the Government who promised to turn the page on Tory sleaze and restore trust and integrity to British politics; instead, the Prime Minister pressured the civil service not once but twice to appoint friends of known sex offenders to senior diplomatic roles.
In closing, the facts were known, the associations were known and the public record was clear. This was a public decision. It was a wrong decision of such magnitude that the only conclusion will be to end the Starmer Administration, and that will happen when the Labour party decides to do so, because it is the Labour party’s responsibility.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I both asked the Prime Minister whether he knew about Peter Mandelson’s role as a director at Sistema when he appointed him to be the ambassador to the United States. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer our question then, I will repeat the facts of the case and ask the Minister for clarification.
From 2013 until at least 2017, Peter Mandelson served as a director for Sistema, a Russian conglomerate that invests heavily in Russia’s military industrial complex. This means that Mandelson remained a director at Sistema after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It also means that he would have maintained close contacts with figures linked to the Russian Government, including Sistema’s former chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov, who is currently subject to sanctions as a result of his links to Vladimir Putin.
Any sensible Prime Minister would want to consider the facts carefully before appointing somebody to a sensitive diplomatic post and would give proper consideration to whether those relationships would leave that person exposed to Russian influence. This is particularly true in the case of Peter Mandelson, who has a long history of improper financial conduct.
In November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to conduct security vetting on prospective candidates before appointing anybody to the ambassador’s post in Washington. In December 2024, the Prime Minister ignored that guidance and appointed Peter Mandelson anyway. In January 2025, the Prime Minister repeatedly insisted before the press and the public that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting, despite the fact that that was not the case. When asked yesterday, he twice refused to confirm that he knew about Peter Mandelson’s links to Sistema, despite the fact that the advice that he received in December 2024 explicitly pointed it out. The advice included the following quote:
“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”
Either the Prime Minister is still reluctant to share with us all the information that we deserve, or he did not read the advice he was given—despite insisting repeatedly that his decision to appoint Mandelson was based on that advice. In light of this, can the Minister tell us definitively this afternoon whether the Prime Minister considered these facts about Peter Mandelson’s role at Sistema when appointing him—yes or no? If he did not, why did he not read his brief? If he did, why did he not consider it sufficiently concerning to abandon, or at the very least pause to reconsider, the appointment of Peter Mandelson to arguably our most important and security-sensitive ambassadorial role?
The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about what he did not know, but we and the British public are incredulous that he did not ask. We know that the Prime Minister knew about the Russian links, so what questions did he ask about those facts? What questions did he ask officials? What questions did he ask Mandelson, or did he simply not want to know?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Everybody has said pretty much everything, but I am going to say some of it again, as is my wont in this Chamber.
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who laid out a powerful case against the Government, particularly against the Prime Minister and his excuses in all this. I think that something very intriguing took place today. The person who has just been sacked was brought to the Foreign Affairs Committee to give testimony about what this was all about. What we learned was that the Government wanted so much for Peter Mandelson to take over the role of ambassador that they drove everything aside in pursuit of it—bullying civil servants, essentially sacking one of them because he did not give the answers it appears that they wanted, and excusing themselves on the basis that everybody else was wrong and they were right. Well they were not, and that has now come home to roost.
The essential fact is that many of us knew about Mandelson’s activities. I have a whole dossier with me here about his links to China, with hundreds of names of people he had met and given details of all sorts of things to. We know now that he lobbied the Government, including over electric vehicles and the tariff. It is outrageous, really; he continued to put pressure on them, even when he was given the job. That is the nature of a man still repaying his links to China. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about his links with Sistema in Russia.
Even on that alone, there was copious evidence in the public domain about why Peter Mandelson should never have been allowed in any Government post whatsoever—that is before there was any attempt at inspection.
There is no way on earth that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) can get up and talk about faults in the system and about not getting clarity—nonsense! Everybody who wanted to know, knew. In the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we knew about it. We had all the details and they were published. There is no excuse for the Government to say, “We waited for the Foreign Office to deliver this great thing, and it did not tell us.” They knew.
Secondly, the way the Government manipulated this is absolutely shocking. The outgoing Cabinet Secretary saw what was in the Cabinet Office’s review of the due diligence—by the way, that was to have a look and give recommendations to Government, which was not the same as what the Foreign Office was doing—and it showed just how tainted this corrupt and corrupting man was and what he had been up to. Having seen that, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary advised the Government—that was his job—that they should not go ahead to appoint Peter Mandelson but wait for the full review to take place, and, one way or the other, for him to be cleared or not cleared. But the Government did not do that.
That is the other question: why, despite that sensible, reasonable advice did the Government go ahead and press on—and at such speed? They put His Majesty the King in the firing line. When they approved the appointment, it went to the King—because they had declared it—even though they had not had clearance, and the agrément was given by our US partners. What in heaven’s name could have happened later on? None of the stuff to do with Epstein had yet come into the middle of the argument. The Government wanted this man, who is utterly corrupt, as our ambassador.
The other bit from today that I find astonishing is the admission by the ex-permanent secretary Olly Robbins that, despite the fact that Peter Mandelson had not been cleared, he was given STRAP clearance to see documents of such importance that they could have brought the Government and the country down.
I will end on this, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have been most tolerant. I simply say this: the Prime Minister is in the firing line on this one, and for very good reasons. He is in charge, and he knew what was going on. The people he sacked are still in the firing line. They cannot weasel out of this. They committed an offence in the books of anybody in the Chamber. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be in the firing line, because he has been put here literally to try to tell some story about how none of this is the Prime Minister’s fault. The Prime Minister has been economical with the actualité and terminologically inexact. All I can say is, no more terminological inexactitudes, please, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to the Dispatch Box.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes.
What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door.
The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance.
The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable.
It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established
“a very, very strong expectation”
that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny.
That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
As others have already said, we can almost feel like everything has been said at this point. However, one thing that strikes me in all this is that this place is called the House of Commons. Our job is to come here and represent the common person, yet this entire debate is so far removed from the common person.
As I said last night, if one of my constituents in Lagan Valley is accidentally overpaid on a benefit, that is clawed back. No matter the human cost to that person, it is clawed back right away—no questions asked, no special circumstances. We see that writ large across our public life, and the reason is that we said that we valued a rules-based, ordered system. We wanted a society that was fair; we valued integrity and we valued trust. More importantly, we wanted to understand that the people who came to this House were going to act in a way that was beyond reproach—in a way that they expected everyone else across the UK to behave.
I am dealing with the case of a guy who is disabled. He accidentally parked in a parking space but did not have his blue badge displayed, and he is getting hammered. Maybe he will get off—who knows? But we are dealing with a situation where the Prime Minister of the day is now saying that he regrets the appointment of Mandelson. I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of DV, STRAP, CTC and everything else, because my people in Lagan Valley do not know what that means. A lot of people are banking on the ordinary man and woman on the street not knowing what that means, and on them stopping being curious and suspending their expectations because this is all highfalutin, serious stuff and we do not really know what that is. Maybe they did do right. Maybe they did not do right. People are bamboozled, but I am going to break it down for them.
I would say this to the Prime Minister: what was it about the twice-disgraced paedophile-adjacent, self-styled prince of darkness that you found so attractive that you put him into this plum job—not just of Government but of the United Kingdom on the world stage? What was it, Prime Minister, that appealed to you about Peter Mandelson? We still do not have the answer. All I know is that my constituents are disgusted with all of this. And this is not the first time; it is not the second time and it is not the third time. It has been going round on the merry-go-round, no matter who it is.
I am really glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is in the Chamber, because he has worked tirelessly to make sure that the issues at the nub of this are heard—the duty of candour and the obligation to be honest with the public, let alone with our colleagues and the entire Administration—yet we are telling families that they cannot access documents for another 100 years due to a technicality. How am I to make that make sense to them?
I am indignant, and I am outraged. A lot of people in this building are expecting us to no longer be outraged. We will be outraged, because if we cannot prove that this works, we know who is going to step into the shadows. We know who is going to be out there setting the algorithms. We know who is going to be preying on the carcase of what was once a great democracy. We are seeing other democracies fail. Let’s not fool ourselves that the UK is immune from this.
The No. 1 thing we can do, within our gift, is to show that we still value integrity. For those reasons, there is not a single excuse that this Government can come up with that I can sell to my constituents or myself that I will believe. For those reasons, I believe that the Prime Minister needs to go—not just for his own party but, more importantly, for the sake of the country.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Yesterday, I sat through over two and a half hours of questions and responses to the Prime Minister. His responses were pretty much focused on process, when really what is fundamental to the issue at hand are judgment and national security.
We do not need some sort of fancy UK vetting dossier to know that Mandelson is a risk to national security. What is more, above and beyond the impact on the victims of Epstein, it is a fact, surely, that the FCDO and the machineries of Government knew that the American Administration very likely had compromising information on Epstein. Despite Mandelson’s close association with Epstein, we appointed him as ambassador to a foreign power—admittedly an ally, but nevertheless a foreign power—to conduct difficult negotiations that would be critical to our national interest, knowing that it was highly likely that that country had compromising information on that individual. That, for me, is the most egregious, fundamental failure to protect our national security. We have learned that this was a political decision. It was the Prime Minister’s decision but, what is more, it reflects on all Ministers, given their collective responsibility.
I strongly believe in forgiveness. The Prime Minister has come here and made an apology, of sorts. It was a very caveated apology: “I didn’t know. People didn’t tell me. People lied and lied to my team.” We know that our apologies have value only if we truly believe that we did something wrong. The Prime Minister needs to finally show some leadership and take responsibility for his actions, for all of us.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Yesterday the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box for nearly 2.5 hours and said on at least 12 occasions that appointing Mandelson was an “error of judgment”—his judgment. He apologised and said that he took responsibility for it, but at no point—not once in that 2.5 hours—did he tell the House what his error of judgment was or exactly where he went wrong in his reasoning. That distinction matters. Saying, “I should not have appointed him,” is a description of an outcome; it is not an account of a judgment. It is like saying, “I should not have crashed the car,” without accounting for the actions that led to the crash, because whether the driver was speeding, distracted or asleep at the wheel, the answer matters. It matters for understanding what went wrong, for preventing it from happening again and for judging whether the driver should still be behind the wheel.
The difference is not a technicality; it is the difference between meaningful accountability and accountability that is merely performative, between a Prime Minister who owns his decisions and one who merely acknowledges them. Accountability to this House is not a constitutional nicety; it is the condition on which this House and the people we all represent grant the Government the authority to act at all.
We all know what was in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received in December 2024: the twice-resigned Minister, the China and Russia connections, and the Epstein association that continued after conviction. The Prime Minister received that report. He has confirmed that he knew its contents, but he proceeded anyway. That was his judgment, and it is that judgment—not the vetting process, not the Foreign Office chain of command, not Sir Olly Robbins—that this House has not been given an account of. Instead, yesterday we received a detailed, exhaustive account of what officials failed to tell him. Yet the more exhaustive the catalogue of official failures becomes, the more completely the Prime Minister’s own reasoning disappears from view. He cannot simultaneously claim an error of judgment and outsource its explanation to official failure. He has offered us an alibi instead of an explanation, an account that places him away from the scene of the crash. Yesterday’s statement was a masterclass in process—process that the Prime Minister was apparently unaware of. It was not an account of a judgment.
This morning, Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee that No. 10 showed no interest in whether Mandelson would receive clearance, only when, that there was, in his words, a “generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting, with focus only on getting him to Washington “quickly”. This is not a picture of a Prime Minister kept in the dark by officials. The alibi, it turns out, has witnesses, and they are not saying what the Prime Minister told us yesterday.
The Prime Minister has wide Executive latitude. He is entitled to make difficult appointments and to weigh competing considerations and reach conclusions that others would not reach. That is what governing requires. But the latitude is not unconditional. It comes with a democratic obligation to account for his reasoning to this House and to the people we represent—not to describe outcomes or to catalogue process, but to explain his judgment. What did the Prime Minister weigh up, what did he conclude and where in his reasoning did he think he went wrong?
Yesterday the Prime Minister told us 12 times that he made an error of judgment, but he has not told us once what that error actually was. We still do not know how he crashed that car, and this House demands an answer.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear.
Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account.
The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered?
The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all?
The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action?
Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position.
We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations.
In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
This morning, Sir Olly Robbins appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I saw was a dedicated public servant who, over 25 years, has held some of the most senior roles in the civil service. The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he was let down by officials such as Sir Olly, but in truth it was the officials who were let down by the Prime Minister. They were let down by a Prime Minister who decided to appoint to the highest diplomatic post in the Foreign Office a person who had a known association with a convicted paedophile, and who had been forced out of Government on previous occasions for personal failings.
Having made that decision, No. 10 was determined to ram it through. We have heard of the repeated calls to Olly Robbins’s private office to demand that they get it done quickly. No. 10 even went so far as to argue that the vetting process was not necessary at all. It was FCDO officials who insisted that the proper process be applied, and it was thanks to that decision that there were risk mitigations in place at all. Other Members have raised concerns about security, but if it was not for officials insisting on security vetting and the imposition of mitigations, how much worse would the national security risk have been to the UK? This is not the Prime Minister being let down by officials; it is officials clearing up the Prime Minister’s mess.
The Prime Minister wants us to believe that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was a singular error of judgment. However, we now know as a result of Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence that No. 10 also sought an ambassadorial appointment for the Prime Minister’s director of communications, Matthew Doyle. Appointing one friend of a paedophile as an ambassador might be an error of judgment. Attempting to appoint two looks like no judgment at all.
In his statement to the House yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
“It beggars belief that…officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 26.]
However, we have now learned that No. 10, having sought an ambassadorial position for Matthew Doyle, ordered Sir Olly not to tell the Foreign Secretary about it at all. On the one hand, the Prime Minister thinks officials should not withhold information. On the other hand, No. 10 is ordering officials to withhold information. Who is letting down who?
Today I saw a diligent, committed, proud and passionate civil servant who worked unbelievably hard for this country and for this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have found someone to fire, but the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was his. The decision to ram that appointment through was his. The decision to announce the appointment before security vetting had been completed was his. The Prime Minister is running out of people to fire. It is time he answered for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister will be called at 5 pm precisely, so with the remaining time, I call Jim Allister.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Yesterday, the focus of many Members was to ask the Prime Minister why he never thought to ask whether Mandelson had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered that there was no such reticence in No. 10 when it came to trying to meddle in this process. We heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning that the message was very clear from No. 10: the Prime Minister wants this done “at pace”. The Prime Minister did not tell us that yesterday. He said it was nothing to do with him; this was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign Office, “This must be done at pace.”
We heard from Sir Olly this morning that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 and that throughout January there was “constant pressure” to get it done, some of it laced with expletives. Sir Olly told us that it would have been “very difficult” not to approve Mandelson. That is in the context of the meddling, the pressure and the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and in a context where even the Cabinet Office, he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it! This is a man who was twice dismissed and had a litany of black marks against him as a public official, and the Cabinet Office—at the heart of this Government—protested that there was no need to vet Mandelson.
The appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, and that is corroborated by what was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle at the very same time. In the early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through Mandelson’s approval, was also secretly, behind the backs of not just this Parliament but his Foreign Secretary, saying, “Could Matthew Doyle be found an ambassadorial post? But don’t tell the Foreign Secretary.” That is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister’s No.10, yet he comes to this House and tells us, “Nothing to do with me, guv. People didn’t tell me. I’m innocent because I didn’t know.” As a lawyer he should know that ignorance is no defence; as a lawyer, his training and instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up. Sadly, what we have had in this case is a monumental failure not just of process, but of character, of judgment, and of leadership—and he should go.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today’s motion asks this House to consider the Government’s accountability to this place for Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The Government have been, and remain, fully committed to keeping the House informed of all relevant information related to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. Ministers have addressed the House on a number of occasions on this matter.
The Prime Minister has set out to the House that, while much of the debate on this issue has focused on process, at the heart of it all is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place. The Prime Minister has been up front about that and takes responsibility for it. He knows that he should not have made the appointment. He regrets the decision, and he apologises for it, in particular to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Those women and girls have been subjected to intolerable cruelty and disgusting abuse, and are to date without justice. Their experiences should be taken seriously and they should be listened to.
I do not come to the House today to defend that decision—it was the wrong one. I am here to account for the Government’s accountability to this House on the process that followed. I take the Government’s responsibility to this House seriously, so I will not take the opportunity this evening to try to score party political points, or to defend a decision that the Prime Minister has said is wrong and for which he apologises. I do, however, commit to returning to this House as often as required.
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister followed the process that was in place, and I will turn to some of the details of that in the remainder of my speech.
On 11 March, I addressed the House in response to the Humble Address, as we released the first tranche of documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal. I committed to keep the House updated as we worked to publish documents relevant to that Humble Address, and I recommit to doing so today. I reassure the House that we are proceeding at pace to process the outstanding documents, a number of which are currently being reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, with the aim of publishing the next tranche of documents as a matter of urgency.
In the debate, I was asked specifically about redactions in documents published in relation to the Humble Address. I will be clear: redactions are visible on the documents by the black marking out of information. If there is no marking out, it is not a redaction. All redactions are agreed via the Intelligence and Security Committee before they come to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s words, and I reiterate his apology for having made that wrong decision in the first place.
I will now move to the specific matter of security vetting. As the House heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, on the evening of 14 April he was told for the first time that last year, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office had granted Peter Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting authority, UKSV. In today’s debate there have been accusations that the Cabinet Office had suggested that developed vetted status or the process to seek that was not necessary. Those accusations are inaccurate. I can confirm to the House, based on advice that I have received, that a question was asked by the Foreign Office of the Cabinet Office team whether, on the basis that Peter Mandelson was already a Member of the House of Lords and a Privy Counsellor, further developed vetting status was required. That then subsequently took place, as Members of the House know.
The Foreign Office officials who made the decision to overrule the recommendation of UKSV then failed to notify the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Minister, including myself, or the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. That has been confirmed today in evidence given by Sir Olly Robbins to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have been listening to the description of this entire saga and it is confusing even to someone who is a Westminster insider, in the Westminster bubble. May I ask a question about process? My right hon. Friend mentioned 14 April, when the Prime Minister was notified that there had been a breach in the security vetting and that it had failed on one aspect. Will he explain to me the process at that point and what the Prime Minister would have had to do to gather all the information before coming to the House? Who would he have to speak to, what legal advice would he have to take, who would he have to consult and what permissions would he have to have? [Interruption.] This is important. What information did he need to have before he came back to the House? I want to know and my constituents want to know.
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and via the publication of a minute of the meeting in which he was informed of this information, the Prime Minister made it immediately clear to his officials that he intended to come to this House to inform Members of Parliament of the situation about which he had just been told, but that he urgently needed a set of information about who had made what decision and when, in order to be able to provide the full facts to Parliament.
On Tuesday 14 April, the Prime Minister instructed officials to establish the facts urgently. I agree with the Prime Minister that he should have been informed of this a long time ago, as should this House. There were multiple opportunities for this issue to have been raised, not just when the decision to grant Peter Mandelson developed vetting status was initially made, but subsequently when the Prime Minister asked the former Cabinet Secretary to assure him that all due process had been followed—and he had been assured of that—and then subsequently again when the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee confirming:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey
The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.
Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.
When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says:
“I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.”
After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.
Darren Jones
I repeat my words and refer back to them.
Much has been said about the ability of officials to disclose sensitive vetting information. As the Prime Minister has set out, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. However, neither the Prime Minister nor I accept that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation made by UKSV. Nor do the Government accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet Secretary of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
The civil service code on this issue is clear, not just in normal practice but especially in relation to when Ministers are giving evidence to Parliament, as was the case via correspondence from the current Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information in order to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or to explain matters to Parliament.
The Government have also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that due diligence is now required as standard. The Prime Minister has also changed the process so that public announcements about direct ministerial appointments can now not be made until security vetting has been completed.
What clearly came to light about Peter Mandelson following the release of files by the United States Department of Justice was clearly deeply disturbing. In February this year, the Prime Minister instructed officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I can confirm that the terms of reference for that review have been updated to include the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. The Government have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review and, for completeness, have separately asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure as ambassador to the United States, in answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). We will publish terms of reference, and the Government commit to return to the House on their findings and recommendations.
On two other questions that were raised during the debate, accusations have been made of the Prime Minister both in this House of misleading and outside this House of lying. Those have been shown today by evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee not to be true in any way. I am sure the House will be as concerned as I am that while officials felt unable to provide this information to Ministers, it was made available to The Guardian. As a consequence, I can confirm that a leak inquiry is now under way.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is my sixth address to this House on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I recognise that the House will want to know about the next steps in respect of the publication of the remainder of the information relevant to the Humble Address that was not included in the first tranche. I commit to the House that we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Badenoch
I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave.
As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility.
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up?
The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.
Richard Burgon
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I apologise for not having been able to give you advance notice of this point of order. I asked whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could answer a question that I have been trying repeatedly to get an answer to, and I would like your advice on how I can get that answer. The question is whether Morgan McSweeney had security clearance at the time that he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. Could we have an answer to that question, either now or in writing? I would be grateful if you could advise me.
Mr Speaker
What I will say is that we are not going to carry on the debate. I know that the Member has been here long enough that he will pursue this matter. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard that he does not feel he has had an answer, but I know that this will not be the end of the matter.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 24 November 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 4, 13, 26, 36 and 37, 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120 and 121, 123, 155, 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 155 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 152 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 144 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I can inform the House that Lords amendment 39 engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will ensure that the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege is entered into the Journal.
Clause 2
Areas of competence
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendments 4, 13 and 26, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 36 and 37, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendments 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 155, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40.
Lords amendment 42, motion to disagree, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 42.
Lords amendments 43 to 55.
Lords amendment 56, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 56.
Lords amendments 57 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the election campaigns for the Surrey West and Surrey East unitaries are ongoing as a consequence of this legislation, but we still have not had an announcement on whether we will get a mayor for Surrey. That will be critical for protecting our green belt if the Conservatives do not retain power after the elections. Can she update the House on the importance of protecting our green belt and getting a mayor for Surrey who can do so?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The question of unitarisation is being dealt with. Applications have been made and the Government are going through the process and looking at the objective criteria. No doubt the hon. Member has had many conversations with the Minister for Housing and Planning on these matters. I will, however, try to focus the hon. Member’s mind and attention on the key premise of this Bill, which is community empowerment and devolution, and on the Lords amendments we are discussing.
Before speaking to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friend Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation to all peers who contributed to its scrutiny. I will begin with the Government amendments that were made in the other place. Following the insightful contribution of peers, Lords amendment 1 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause 2 of the Bill. By doing so, the Government are sending a clear signal on the role that strategic authorities can and should continue to play in supporting cultural initiatives, as well as recognising the important role that culture in its many forms plays in enriching quality of life and supporting local economic growth.
We are also improving the operational flexibility of the commissioner model introduced by the Bill. Lords amendments 3 and 5 increase the potential number of commissioners to 10, and Lords amendments 125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135 allow more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence.
The next group of important changes that the Government made in the other place concerns local accountability and scrutiny. The Government committed to exploring a local Public Accounts Committee model in the English devolution White Paper. We recognised that greater powers of local scrutiny are needed to reflect the increased scale of responsibility that will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities through the Bill. To that end, Lords amendments 7, 137 and 138 introduce local scrutiny committees, which replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities. Local scrutiny committees will provide an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight, a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities and greater teeth to hold mayors to account.
On Report, the Government introduced amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and created a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. That included an amendment to create a new duty on the Mayor of London to determine and publish a new strategic licensing policy.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns about strategic licensing that I and colleagues in London have shared with her. May I confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for an application to be treated as being of potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within a London plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, and that instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is of potential strategic importance, the Government intend for regard to be given to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local licensing authority?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for asking an important question, and for his ongoing engagement in this area. Let me take his question in the context of what we are trying to do through the Bill. The Government are really clear, and Baroness Taylor made it very clear in the other place, that we recognise that licensing authorities are often best placed to make licensing decisions, based on their local knowledge. In that context, the evidence provided by licensing authorities will have a significant role in both the design of the policy and the determination of potential strategic importance.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
One area that has been talked about is the ability of scrutiny bodies to take decisions, and the challenge in London is that there has to be a two-thirds majority to make a decision. The suggestion was made that this could be changed and be brought in line with other authorities, so that we have simple majority voting. Does the Minister agree that we have missed an opportunity to do that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment.
The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment.
We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right.
On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Given that the new powers are being handed to local transport authorities, will there be funding to enforce the new measures and the obligations that councils are getting?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Any progress on banning pavement parking is progress, so I absolutely welcome that. Will guidance be given to local authorities on how that could work? We have a ban in Edinburgh, which has been transformative, so hopefully we can look there for examples of how it could work. The Minister mentioned exemptions. Will the Government mandate any exemptions centrally, or is it entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
I think the Minister has slightly brushed over Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. This is an excellent Bill, but I do think it is disappointing that the Government are rejecting Lords amendment 41. If we want to properly protect our beloved music venues, pubs and cultural institutions, we need measures with teeth. The agent of change principle works in Scotland, where it is in statute, but such measures do not really work in England at the moment.
I had hoped that the Government would table an amendment in lieu on this issue, and I guess there is still time, but if not—and I know the Minister will say that the Government are looking at the national planning policy framework—could I encourage the strongest possible protections in that for the venues I have mentioned?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As my hon. Friend says, Lord amendment 41, with Lords amendment 95, would place the agent of change principle on a statutory footing in the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regimes. While I and the Government respect the concerns raised in the other place and those he has raised about how in some cases new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity, we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary, given the changes to the planning system already in progress.
The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance frameworks give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. Furthermore, we are already considering changes to strengthen this duty, because we recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend has made.
As the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework that would strengthen this policy and ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses while building the houses the country desperately needs. Today, I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change principle, following the publication of the final national planning policy framework. This guidance will ensure consistent application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. I hope that will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 41.
Lords amendment 42, moved by Lord Banner, fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trusts was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in difficult and protracted legal wranglings. While this will apply in only a very small number of cases, the Government do not believe that historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk is preventing the delivery of environmental improvements, or improvements to community facilities.
The amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in a statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not—it does not—weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidenced-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations. By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law, the amendment ensures decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interests of the public. For those reasons, the Government support the amendment.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
With respect, may I correct the Minister? There is a process by which the gap can be corrected. The land could be re-conveyed to the local authority and then the correct process carried out. Does she agree that the weakness of Lord Banner’s amendment is that the local authority has no role to play? In the process that should have been used, the local authority has a role to play. This is moving from localism back to centralised Government making decisions. Is that not wrong?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is still the responsibility of the local authority. The amendment is trying to get to those specific cases where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land and then we are in limbo; it creates a mechanism by which to resolve that. There is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land, or maintain it in statutory trusts. That is not affected by this amendment. This is trying to get to those situations where it has not been discharged properly. There is currently a gap in the legislation, which we hope this amendment responds to.
Mr Kohler
Then there are two remedies: to re-convey the land to the local authority to do it correctly, or to bring an amendment that gives the local authority a role to play. The local authority has no role to play in this amendment; that is why it is moving from localism to ministerial fiat. That is what is wrong with the amendment.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Whether it is in the planning system or in other systems, in instances where we have a contentious situation and disagreement because a local authority has not discharged its responsibilities in disposing of statutory trusts, at the moment we are in limbo. The amendment creates a mechanism by which that can be resolved. We are very clear that strict criteria and safeguards are put in place. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will opine and come to a decision based on what is in the public interest. The ability of the community to make representations is very clear and very firmly built into the way we are designing the policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to make progress. I move on to amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill. For that reason, we cannot accept them. Let me be clear about precisely why, starting with Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 2 seeks to include rural affairs as a stand-alone area of competence for strategic authorities. Peers in the other place highlighted the distinct challenges facing our rural communities, from public transport through to employment opportunities and affordable housing. The Government recognise those challenges and agree with many of the points made in the other place. However, we cannot accept the amendment because we consider it unnecessary.
The areas of competence have been deliberately framed in broad terms, allowing a wide range of activities to fall within scope, including matters relating to rural affairs. From transport through to local infrastructure and housing, the existing areas of competence already allow for strategic authorities to address rural needs where relevant. Crucially, this is now being borne out; York and North Yorkshire combined authority, for instance, is already piloting affordable rural housing. There is no disagreement on policy; the Government recognise the role that strategic authorities can play in supporting our rural communities. Given that, I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given.
Lords amendment 4 seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process. On this, we agree. That is why the Government have published statutory guidance that sets out the selection, appointment and remuneration process. We hope that doing so satisfies the points raised in the other House.
Lords amendments 13 and 87 seek to reduce the threshold needed for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority, which was the point the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) was making. It is the Government’s intention to simplify and ensure consistency in voting arrangements across all our strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority. For most decisions, the default will become a simple majority, but that does not apply for mayoral budgets, which will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend.
Given that mayors and combined authorities may have their budgets amended only by a two-thirds majority, the Government believe that these amendments would bring scrutiny of London’s mayoral budget out of line with other strategic authorities. We therefore do not support the amendments and urge the House to reject them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress, if I may.
Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make a little more progress first.
We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March.
The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.
Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary.
Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will have to make progress in case I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Finally, Lords amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120 and 121 and 123 collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government have been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We have also been clear that we will always seek to make sure that partnerships are locally driven. I hope that the new combined authorities we established in recent weeks and our invitation to all areas to form foundational strategic authorities serve as evidence that we are taking a local-first and locally driven approach.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members.
To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.
The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.
Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.
Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.
Sir James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.
Sir James Cleverly
No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall.
The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards.
On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it.
While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.
Sir James Cleverly
I will, because I have a thing to say about the hon. Gentleman’s party.
Mr Kohler
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Tories’ amendment (a) would do nothing and that it is actually just a tick-box exercise that would allow Lords amendment 42 to pass with the Minister just having to have regard to a report? Why did the Tory party not vote against the amendment? There are many that did not pass. Why did they not vote against this amendment from Lord Banner?
Sir James Cleverly
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job.
The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The implications of this legislation will be significant for communities across the country. It is therefore crucial that we get it right.
I pay tribute to Eamonn Boylan, who sadly passed away earlier this month—a pivotal figure for Greater Manchester’s devolution journey. During his time as chief executive of the combined authority, he understood that the more power we obtain, both regionally and locally, the more we can deliver. Eamonn certainly helped Greater Manchester to deliver, following the progress made by the likes of Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese.
We in Greater Manchester have been at the forefront of progress in this area and we have been focused on one thing: making tangible improvements to the lives of those who elect us. This Labour Government must be radical in their approach to devolution, bringing power closer to people and not hoarding it in this place, and we must future-proof this Government’s achievements from those who would seek to undermine and unravel our progress.
We need to ensure that the transfer of power to our communities is permanent. From adding culture as a devolved competence to strengthening restrictions on gambling premises, there is much to welcome in the amendments. Today I will cover the amendments related to private hire vehicles, both in terms of national standards and Lords amendments 55 to 62 on enforcement powers for drivers operating in other areas. I previously tabled an amendment on this matter, which I believe would have empowered mayoral strategic authorities to require private hire vehicle drivers to licence within their region. That would have brought licensing, enforcement and monitoring closer to home and forged stronger ties between drivers and the communities they serve.
I acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Pidgeon, who sought, as I did, to phase out out-of-area operations. I welcome the steps that the Government, in the form of Lords amendments, have taken towards enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against a PHV licensed out of area and to temporarily suspend licences.
I especially welcome the steps that these amendments take to improve information sharing between licensing authorities on the conduct of individual drivers. Although I support this step and the Government’s work on national standards, we must acknowledge that the system at large will still be characterised by out-of- area operations. I commend what the Government are seeking to do, but if we are to bring about better enforcement processes, we need to incentivise or perhaps mandate drivers to license locally and therefore disincentivise drivers from taking shortcuts to obtaining a licence hundreds of miles away from where they wish to operate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.
What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution.
Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought.
We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law.
Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account.
We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.
Zöe Franklin
When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.
Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.
Carla Denyer
Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.
Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.
I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance.
However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Zöe Franklin
I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally.
One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues.
I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that.
I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing a five-minute time limit.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
My area of Sussex is on the fast-track devolution programme. Although that brings challenges and inevitably means that we are still building parts of the plane while learning to fly, for my constituents and all Sussex residents, the devolution of power and resources has the potential to transform our area in health, education, housing, transport and sustainable economic development.
Given the short time available to me, I will concentrate my remarks on Lords amendment 80, which would strengthen the ability of licensing authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to issue cumulative impact assessments or gambling impact assessments. The amendment would give councils a clear, evidence-based tool to assess the cumulative impact of adult gaming centres and to identify areas in which further gambling premises would undermine local licensing objectives, including vulnerability and clustering.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Crewe in my constituency currently faces proposals for yet another adult gaming centre, which I have personally objected to. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strengthening of gambling impact assessments, as well as the wider proposals in the Pride in Place strategy, will allow areas like Crewe to actively shape our high streets and that it is incumbent on local authorities to proactively take up those powers?
Dr Cooper
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I am an officer of the APPG on gambling reform, and we have been doing significant work to gather evidence on this issue over the past 18 months. The sad truth is that the highest numbers of adult gaming centres are predominantly found in our poorest areas. Areas of deprivation need investment, employment and development, not a drain on resources and an open door to the black hole of addiction.
However, Lords amendment 80 is only the start of what we need to do in this area to create environments where our populations can thrive. The “aim to permit” rule remains, and there will be a tension with gambling impact assessments, as it means that councils must still start from a presumption of granting licences, which limits their ability to respond to community opposition, high street saturation and local priorities, even in areas where there are clear concerns about overconcentration of gambling venues. The licensing committee of Worthing borough council recently turned down yet another request for a gambling premises on our high street, but that has now gone to appeal, and the presumption of “aim to permit” means that the balance of evidence is more difficult to hold, even with sound public health and local economic development arguments.
We must therefore continue to develop our legislative approach in this area. Once the impact of gambling impact assessments has been evaluated, we should make a decision on bringing forward legislation to remove “aim to permit” to give councils the right powers to protect and develop our local areas. Alongside that, as the impact assessments and “aim to permit” refer only to the opening of new centres, we must ensure that current licences are not being abused and that licensing codes are upheld.
Lords amendment 80 speaks to the desire of national and local government to enact legislation that lets people thrive in the places where we live. Creating a healthy democracy that has clear objectives and is properly resourced, alongside legislation that allows local government to protect populations from harm and to create healthy environments, is an integral part of this devolution Bill, and I very much welcome it for my area of Sussex and our country.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.
Wendy Morton
Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.
Lewis Cocking
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London.
The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.
Mr Forster
I thank my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for giving way, and I agree with his criticism of the Labour Government. Does he agree that the Conservatives also have an appalling record on defending our green belt and environment? In my Woking constituency, the Conservative Government’s planning policy forced the release of green belt in West Hall in West Byfleet so that there was the urban sprawl that the hon. Member is now speaking so strongly against.
Lewis Cocking
I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him.
It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not.
As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important.
As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission.
I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree that, particularly for those with disabilities or who are blind, this issue is a real problem?
Lewis Cocking
I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.
Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.
These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.
In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), my former colleague on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This Bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time I will speak about just one measure: my support for Government amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country. What used to be a rarity is now all too common: slot machine casinos, often open 24/7, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses, despite often vociferous local opposition. When residents and councils try to resist, it is often futile. The companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, withdraw them and then reapply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. That grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose, so we can see why the incentives have been to give up and grant permission.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
In Crystal Palace in my constituency, I am campaigning against a 24-hour gambling casino. The community do not want it and the company that applied for the casino was fined £1 million in January for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the “aim to permit” rule and placing a presumption to reject in specific areas would force my Conservative-run council and others to listen to residents and to make themselves clear?
Joe Powell
I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.
To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.
Anna Dixon
As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.
I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.
For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.
Ben Coleman
As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency neighbours his. In my constituency, the North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone and has been identified as such by the council. It borders the Clem Attlee and West Kensington estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and income. That is no coincidence. The council is doing what it can in the current legal framework, but does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and that this Bill will help?
Joe Powell
I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.
In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now have a three-minute speaking limit.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.
We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.
I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.
Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.
However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I will speak to Lords amendment 41, regarding putting the agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the Government’s plans to increase house building, and I recognise that genuine care has to be taken to not increase red tape to the detriment of that goal. However, at the moment, the agent of change regime is preventing elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, as I will come on to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), I am slightly disappointed that that a Government amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 41 has not been tabled.
Sunderland is a music city, and venues such as Pop Recs, Independent and The Bunker are core to our identity. If we are about empowering our community, we need to empower it to protect those venues culturally important to us, which of course are also crucially economically important. As has been said, many grassroots music venues have closed over recent years, with the number declining from 1,150 venues nationally to 800 today. Those closures are due to not just economic factors, but planning issues.
The Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is that there have been forms of guidance since 2014 or 2015, and the Music Venue Trust reports that there has been no let-up in inappropriate planning applications near music venues. For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that
“the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.”
This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general.
In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection. That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals.
Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?
Mr Kohler
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 42. Where a local authority provides land for public recreation, it can be held on the basis of a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament has set out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It is not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities.
In Day v. Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust—quite reasonably—remains in place. However, amendment 42, first tabled in the other place by the Conservative peer Lord Banner, cuts across that principle. It would allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections where the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces localism with centralism.
Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is
“causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2026; Vol. 863, c. GC527.]
The only example I am aware of is a controversial issue in my constituency of Wimbledon. In that case, the All England Lawn Tennis Club bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park in 1993 at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt that the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner’s amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy.
Unfortunately, despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment. That amendment would, however, still have been defeated had the Tories joined my Lib Dem colleagues in the No Lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner.
As we have heard, the Tories tabled an amendment—now re-tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—that would require the Secretary of State to write a report, lay it before Parliament and consider it. That is simply a tick-box exercise that would do nothing to stop Lord Banner’s amendment from coming into force. It is a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them—and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has the cheek to ask me why the Lib Dems refuse to join the Tories in this deception.
My constituents in Wimbledon expect the legal protections of land to be upheld in practice, not set aside for ministerial discretion and Tory cons. I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain. That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak tonight in support of two specific areas of the Bill that will directly affect my constituents in Portsmouth North.
First, I welcome the strengthening of gambling impact assessments. That links directly to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I have already been doing on our “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign, which has been calling for stronger powers for councils and trading standards to protect our local high streets from rogue, harmful businesses. As I have said throughout the campaign, it is not just about tax-dodging businesses, dodgy vape shops and cowboy barbers; it is also about making sure that our high streets are not overwhelmed by the uses that damage community wellbeing and push out legitimate local traders. That absolutely includes gambling premises.
In North End, one small part of my constituency, five betting shops and arcades are concentrated within a very small area. North End has a proud local high street, but it faces challenges, because the community is already dealing with significant economic and social pressures, alongside a high street that has been neglected for years. This concentration of gambling premises in one community is not an accident, and it is not acceptable.
This kind of clustering can deepen financial hardship, contribute to addiction and poor mental health and undermine the health of the high street. That is why Lords amendment 80 matters. It gives local authorities stronger powers to assess whether additional gambling premises are genuinely consistent with the needs of the area and licensing objectives. That is exactly the kind of tool I have been pushing for and that local councils need if we are serious about backing our high streets and restoring confidence. That is what the Pride in Place strategy should look like in practice—not just warm words on a page, but real powers to shape better high streets.
Secondly, I will highlight the amendments on taxi and private vehicle licensing. I wholeheartedly welcome Lords amendments 43 to 79. The gap in enforcement powers that exists when a vehicle is licensed in one authority but operates in another is real and a long-standing concern for my residents. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I have concerns about the number of vehicles operating that are licensed outside Portsmouth. Mainly, they are licensed in Wolverhampton.
To be clear, I realise that Wolverhampton carries out robust checks and I understand why many drivers choose to license there—in particular because of the cost of living and because it is significantly quicker—but authorities have too often found themselves powerless to act swiftly when a driver poses a risk to public safety, simply because the licence has been issued elsewhere. These amendments close that gap.
Residents have also highlighted concerns where local standards differ. For example, in Portsmouth, licensed taxis are expected to meet local safety requirements, such as having dash cams and vehicle CCTV, while those licensed elsewhere do not. Can the Minister comment on the options for having a national framework for the licensing of vehicles? That common-sense reform would put the safety of all passengers and drivers first. These are practical, common-sense initiatives, but we need to make sure that our councils deliver on them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were
“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”
with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.
Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.
On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:
“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]
Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.
Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.
Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left.
Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.
On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.
Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.
On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.
The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress because there is very little time left.
I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward.
Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy.
Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite.
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities.
I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [Interruption.] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward.
I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we will consider the motions to disagree with Lords amendments 99 to 116 collectively.
Lords amendments 99 to 116 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 120 and 121 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 123 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 155 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154, and 156 to 170 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 39.
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 Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Business without Debate
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I present a petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Sutton and Cheam,
Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003187]
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on access to household waste recycling centres following significant local concern from residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and the surrounding areas over the decision to charge Somerset residents £8.50 to use facilities in Dorset. The petition declares that Somerset residents should be able to use their closest household waste recycling centre. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and to encourage Dorset Council and Somerset Council to take immediate action to ensure that Somerset residents are able to use their closest household waste recycling centre without charge, including in Sherborne.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that Somerset residents should be able to use their closest household waste recycling centre; further declares that the decision to charge Somerset residents £8.50 to use a Dorset Council household waste recycling centre in Sherborne is wrong; further notes the recent separate petition highlighting the strength of community feeling on this issue; further declares that this move will force residents in Milborne Port, Henstridge, Charlton Horethorne, Corton Denham, Templecombe and the surrounding areas to travel up to a 28 mile round trip to access a free household waste recycling centre; further notes the possible environmental impact of this decision and the possible increased CO2 emissions and fuel costs for rural residents; further declares that easy access encourages residents to separate waste properly rather than disposing of recyclables, hazardous items, or bulky furniture in standard household bins; further notes with concern that this charge has been implemented after the latest annual statistics show there was an 9% increase in fly tipping incidents in 2024/25; and further notes that 62% of fly-tips involved household waste.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and to encourage Dorset Council and Somerset Council to take immediate action to ensure that Somerset residents are able to use their closest household waste recycling centre without charge, including in Sherborne.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003188]
SS Richard Montgomery: Masts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really grateful to you and the House for this opportunity to discuss something that is of immense importance to residents in Sittingbourne, and especially on the Isle of Sheppey. It should also be of real concern to Members of this House, since the wreck that I am about to talk about, which lies at the mouth of the Thames estuary, also presents a danger to the physical wellbeing of the Houses of Parliament themselves.
For those who do not know, the Richard Montgomery, which lies just beneath the water at the mouth of the Thames, contains potentially the largest amount of explosives that could explode in peacetime anywhere in the world that has not been a nuclear test. This amount of explosives could, if they all went off at the same time, throw a plume of water 3,000 metres into the sky, setting off a tsunami that would obliterate vast swathes of the Kent and Essex coastline and shoot all the way up to London to flood all our colleagues who might be drinking on the Terrace of the House of Commons. This is obviously a real concern. I have to say that that was based on calculations done in the 1970s. More recent assessments of the wreck are not quite as dramatic. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of munitions on the floor of the sea, just at the mouth of the most important river in our country, the River Thames.
The Richard Montgomery came over during the 1940s. It was full of munitions that were being given to Britain to fight the Nazis in the second world war. Tragically, it lost its anchorage and drifted on to a sandbank. When the tide fell, it broke the back of the ship, leaving it marooned in the mouth of the Thames. Since then, it has been a major landmark that is used by ships to navigate their way up and down the River Thames and a warning to people not to get too close to the explosives. It can be seen from Sheerness, where it is only about a mile and a half out to sea. People who have grown up on Sheppey know this story. It does not just connect them to the second world war and the support we got from our American allies at that time; it also has a powerful story, because of the threat of the explosives, as people grow up around it and feel that they might be in danger of a catastrophic explosion occurring.
In recent years, the wreck, which is a steel vessel, has been gradually deteriorating and corroding. Concerns have been raised about what would happen if the vessel should disintegrate completely and scatter the explosives across the sea or, even worse, if any of them were to be triggered. I have spoken to explosives experts and bomb disposal experts in the Royal Navy and the general feeling is that, when vessels such as this were set to sea, all the explosives and munitions on board were made safe. The detonators would have been kept separate from the high explosive charges and the risk is comparatively low, but we cannot say that there is zero risk.
One of the concerns that has been raised in recent years is that, as the three masts that stand proud of the water erode and rust away, they could fall on the wreck and destroy what is left of the Richard Montgomery, either triggering an explosion or scattering the explosives. Over several years, the Government and the previous Government looked at what could be done to make it as safe as possible, and the decision was made to remove the masts. The Government have finally now signed a contract with the removal company that will dismantle the masts. This landmark will be lost forever to people from Sheerness, and the emotion and those stories are at risk of being lost locally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.
Kevin McKenna
Yes, for any community that has strong links to the sea, the stories of the sea run deep in everyone’s veins. As I was about to come on to, there is an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean-looking mermaid who has her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator, threatening Sheerness. People have a sense of pride about that mural and the stories, and it matters to all the communities that surround the area where the Montgomery is laid to rest.
It is important that we ensure that the masts are preserved for the future and, building on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people locally are keen that if these masts are removed, they come to land. The Government, as I say, are removing the masts. We do not know what condition the masts will be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people in Sheppey would love to have one of the masts, at least, returned to the mainland.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward. The SS Richard Montgomery is equally as visible from Southend, and my residents in Southend and Leigh on the other side of the estuary share all the same stories as his residents. They have an affinity to these masts and the stories of the ship that they hear—as well as a little bit of fear. While he calls for a mast to be preserved and placed in the Isle of Sheppey or somewhere in his constituency, I too would like to see a second mast saved and placed somewhere within Southend or Leigh across the estuary opposite his constituency.
Kevin McKenna
Absolutely. As I have talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone, “The masts are all ours! We have to have them all.” There are three masts—we can share. I know that it matters to people in Southend; I have had communications from some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and also from people more generally.
There is one extra snag in this project. Currently, the masts are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. There was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. Although for decades the United Kingdom Government have been responsible for ensuring that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which are the United States Government. Although I know that people locally would like the masts, and I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be happy for them to come to Sheppey and to Southend, we will have to ask the United States Government for one of the masts. There are three masts; Southend could have one, Sheppey could have one, and maybe one could go into the ballroom that Donald Trump is building at the moment—they would look great covered in gold leaf. Beyond that, this means that we must engage in a bit of diplomatic discussion with our American allies. It would be a massive testament to our partnership with our American friends during the second world war, and since then through NATO. It is a way of bringing that story to life for people. We could use this to bring us together, as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together. It could reignite—not literally; that would be terrible—the bonds with our American allies.
I have a few questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised by my constituents. A no-fly zone has recently been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. Several constituents would like to know why and what has changed. Are the changes reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the Montgomery’s cargo? People would also like to know what this would involve, and what we need to do to ask the Americans if we can have the masts. Do the Government still believe that the masts should be kept in the United Kingdom? I would also like some general evaluation of the Government’s ideas about a timeline for the removal of the masts and what it would involve.
This is quite a romantic story in its way. Shipwrecks always have a degree of romance to them, and the Montgomery has the added frisson of an incredible amount of explosives, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) said, adds a little bit of fear. The wreck speaks to me about how such stories get embedded in communities, even over a few decades. The people of Sheppey really care. I have a petition running at the moment, and I hope that there is a petition in Southend, too. I encourage anyone to sign my petition so that we can show the strength of feeling and the real desire to finally bring the masts of the Richard Montgomery home to the United Kingdom, home to Sheppey and home to Southend.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The most dangerous wreck in Britain—respond to that, Minister!
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who is responsible for maritime matters and has led this work within the Department but is not available this evening. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this Adjournment debate and for the constructive way in which he has continued to engage with the Department on this long-standing and sensitive matter.
Frankly, it was fascinating to read the briefing for today and to see the photograph of the masts sticking up from the surface of the Thames. My hon. Friend has consistently articulated, on behalf of his constituents, the importance of safety and the strong local attachment to the SS Richard Montgomery as part of the area’s history. Those views are obviously shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and his constituents.
It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach. As we have already heard, the wreck has been the source of intrigue, speculation and concern for a number of years, both regionally and nationally. I understand that it is even the subject of a Bollywood drama. I reassure hon. Members that my Department monitors the SS Richard Montgomery 24 hours a day, every day of the year; carries out annual surveys; and publishes reports detailing its condition. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that those reports show no significant worsening of the wreck, and there is no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in risk.
None the less, the SS Richard Montgomery has spent more than 80 years lying on the bed of the Thames estuary, and will corrode over time. That is why the expert advisory group recommended in 2018 that the three masts should be removed to reduce stress on the overall structure and avoid the risk of heavy material collapsing on to the cargo of munitions.
Following that recommendation, a project was initiated to carry out mast removal, with contracts put in place to carry out the works. However, detailed investigations during the planning phase found that the site was more complex than originally thought, due to legacy munitions from both world wars present below the seabed. The project paused in 2023, to allow my Department to consider the best way to manage that risk.
Since 2024, the Government have invested time and resource in understanding as much as possible about the SS Richard Montgomery. That has included the most comprehensive survey programme ever undertaken on this wreck site, a thorough review of all available information, and revised modelling of a worst-case scenario.
The revised modelling, using the latest advanced techniques for simulating an explosion in water, has been peer-reviewed by experts at the Ministry of Defence. That might well be welcome news for any of my colleagues currently enjoying a drink on the House of Commons Terrace, because I reassure my hon. Friends that this latest modelling shows that even in the absolute worst-case scenario—considered highly unlikely—damage onshore is likely to be limited to potential minor breakages to single-glazed windows, with no debris expected to reach Sheerness or any other town, and waves unlikely to breach flood defences.
However, based on that modelling, the Government decided in May last year to introduce a restriction on flying above the wreck site. Rather than there being a concern about the dangers of aircraft flying over the site with any intent, that decision was made on the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority to protect any aircraft in the vicinity in an absolute worst-case scenario.
I stress that the risk of an incident related to the SS Richard Montgomery remains low, but the Government are committed to reducing that risk as far as possible. The SS Richard Montgomery programme has progressed a procurement at pace since mid-2025 to deliver mast reduction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, the Minister responsible for maritime matters, set out in correspondence to local Members of Parliament and councillors in November 2025, the Department was clear about its intention to procure a specialist salvage contractor to carry out these works in a safe and controlled manner. That correspondence explained that the decision to progress mast removal was based on expert advice, reflecting the age and condition of the wreck and the need for proactive intervention to manage risk. It also made clear that the Department intended to launch a procurement process to identify a contractor with the specialist capability required to operate at such a complex site, while continuing to monitor the condition of the wreck.
The procurement was designed to prioritise safety and risk reduction while ensuring appropriate oversight, value for money and resilience in delivery. It also reflected the Department’s commitment to transparency and to keeping locally elected representatives informed as decisions were taken and the programme progressed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear at the time, this would be a cautious, evidence-led process shaped by expert advice and informed by the unique risks associated with the SS Richard Montgomery. Consequently, a leading global salvage company, Resolve Marine, was appointed recently and is currently preparing detailed plans to undertake the work. The solution put forward by Resolve Marine is considered to provide the best chance of achieving mast reduction safely by 2027. It may be completed earlier than that, but that depends on the conditions, the weather and so on as the work is carried out.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Southend West and Leigh both raised important questions about what will happen to the masts once they are safely removed from the wreck. I recognise the strength of local feeling about preserving them as a cultural and historic feature. I want to be clear that at this stage, the Government’s focus must remain firmly on reducing risk and delivering the operation safely. Decisions about the treatment, storage or potential future display of the masts will depend on their condition once they are recovered, the way in which they are removed and what can be done safely and practically.
Furthermore, our salvage advisers have made clear that the masts will require specialised treatment and storage once removed to prevent decay. The conservation process required will not be clear until the masts can be studied after they have been removed, and it is therefore not possible at this stage to commit to displaying the masts in a particular location. However, my Department fully recognises the interest of the local authority, heritage bodies and the community, and I know how important this issue is locally. I have seen photographs of the mermaid mural, which is impressive, and I congratulate Sheerness town council and the Criterion theatre, which have both been involved in working with my hon. Friend to celebrate that local landmark which, as he said, is such a source of local pride.
As the project progresses, my officials will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and local stakeholders to explore what options might be feasible without compromising safety or prejudicing the primary objective of risk reduction. It would not be right to prejudge those outcomes now, but I assure him we understand that those conversations are important and will continue alongside delivery of the works. As my hon. Friend recognised in his speech, the wreck remains the property of the United States Government, and any decisions regarding the future of the masts and the wreck must be taken in consultation with the United States Maritime Administration. I assure my hon. Friends and the wider community that this programme is being taken forward with seriousness, transparency and a clear sense of responsibility.
The SS Richard Montgomery is not an issue that can be resolved quickly or simply, but the Government are addressing the situation in a careful, evidence-led way, informed by expert advice and supported by sustained engagement with those most affected, including my hon. Friend’s constituents and others with an interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise the interests of his constituents. My Department will continue to engage with him as the project moves forward.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for his constructive contributions on behalf of the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh on his contribution today. I look forward to updating the House as this project makes further progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome all Members to the Committee. I am very pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 24 February.
The draft regulations are important to keep our post-Brexit chemicals regime robust, proportionate and fit for the long term. They amend three pieces of chemicals legislation that we assimilated from the European Union, putting right things that could not be put right at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available then under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft regulations maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment, making sure that the regulatory system works efficiently for businesses, and supporting economic growth. In combination with the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive to aligning with the European Union’s regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the draft regulations create a framework for adopting EU chemical hazard classifications more quickly in Great Britain. Chemicals stakeholder groups across the board broadly share the wish to stay as aligned with the European Union as possible, to support trade and to maintain the high standards of protection that we share with our closest trading partners, and this statutory instrument reflects those wishes.
It is very important that this legislation has been laid now, because the powers provided for in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June, and no other suitable powers are available. The changes being made here are about keeping on the market things that are currently available. New things that are not currently available will still be subject to existing classification and approval requirements, and will be permitted in Great Britain only if the HSE has undertaken an evaluation of them, as is the case at present. There will be a fast track for classification evaluations, but only if the substance has already been subject to classification by a regime that adopts the United Nations globally harmonised system on the same basis as the UK—which means, at present, only the European Union’s. Substances approved elsewhere will not be eligible for fast-tracked evaluation in the UK.
The measures strike an important balance, giving more certainty and flexibility, with a more proportionate system for chemicals suppliers and the regulator, while protecting the natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution, protecting people who use and work with hazardous chemical substances, and retaining the benefits of important biocidal products, such as those used to provide clean drinking water.
The Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals supply framework is overseen through three regimes. First, there is the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, BPR, which controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products—disinfectants, insecticides, and so on. Secondly, there is the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging—CLP—regulation, which provides for the identification and communication of chemical hazards, adopting the UN globally harmonised system of classification and labelling. Thirdly, there is the GB prior informed consent—PIC—regulation, which governs the export and import of some hazardous chemicals.
Those regulations were carried over from EU law under the 2023 Act, which enables sensible amendments to keep those regimes operating effectively. The regulations before the Committee apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. In Northern Ireland, EU chemicals legislation continues to apply under the Windsor framework.
The chemicals supply framework that we inherited from the European Union provided a high level of protection, but there are some structural and operational problems in applying it in a single country. We used, for example, to share access to the testing resources of all European Union countries; now we just have access to our own. Without these regulations, we would very quickly run into serious problems. Up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would very soon lose approval and have to be removed from the market.
Those products include insecticides used to remove disease vectors from aircraft, disinfectants for infection control in hospitals, anti-fouling coatings needed by ships at sea, wood preservatives that protect businesses and homes, and other biocides that are important for public health. There would also be inadequate powers to issue temporary permits for critical products, so that it would no longer be possible for essential products such as aviation fuel preservatives and chemicals used to disinfect public drinking water supplies permitted under those powers to be supplied and used legally.
Businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens such as notification requirements that no longer serve any purpose, and the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to prioritise more quickly and flexibly chemical hazard assessments relevant to the Great Britain market would remain limited. At the moment, the HSE has by law to consider EU risk assessment committee classification proposals, including those that are irrelevant to this country. Exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to have to carry out pointless tasks such as obtaining a special reference identification number that customs authorities do not use. I also want to make clear that there would be no corresponding benefits at all to health or to the environment.
Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available.
The regulation clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-European Union sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement as part of the reset negotiations for the relationship between us and the European Union. We do not know the outcome of those negotiations, but the direction of travel, as the Government have made clear, is that the UK will follow a model of dynamic alignment with the European Union for biocide products.
The measures maintain important disease prevention and public health protections while enabling SPS agreement negotiations to conclude and any agreement to be implemented. The changes do not allow the introduction of new biocidal products that have not been evaluated and approved under the rigorous biocides regulatory framework, but rather maintain the availability of existing biocidal active substances and products that are already permitted under the current rules. The changes deliver certainty and continuity, not deregulation.
The regulation on classification, labelling and packaging introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling list—the MCL list—by removing duplicative actions. It removes the obligation to automatically consider all initial EU hazard classification proposals—even those for products that nobody is interested in using in the UK—so that the HSE can prioritise what matters for this country and introduce a bespoke GB work plan, setting out the classification priorities for the HSE over a three-year period. The plan will be subject to annual review and agreed following consultation with the devolved Governments.
The regulation will also allow the Health and Safety Executive to respond to changes resulting from later European Union decisions; flexibility that the current regime does not allow. It creates a faster evaluation pathway for adopting EU classification proposals other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to the HSE website so that updates will no longer require legislation, making technical guidance more up-to-date and accessible, and revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data that is no longer needed.
The changes simplify regulation and introduce greater flexibility to direct limited resources to hazard classification evaluations that are relevant in Britain. They maintain high standards of protection, and do not in any way change the legal requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of their being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. It will also be possible to legally require the assessment of other types of hazards, such as those in the new EU hazard classes, on a case-by-case basis, until the future legislation is introduced. That allows us to adopt EU measures if we need to and maintain coherent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The regulation on the export and import of hazardous chemicals removes the redundant requirement for exports of small quantities of chemicals for use in research, analysis or emergency situations from Great Britain to have special reference identification numbers. It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing a barrier to legitimate trade. It makes the Health and Safety Executive, as the designated national authority, responsible for reviewing and updating the GB list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It also aligns our updates more closely with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving exporters greater clarity on prohibited substances. All those changes will streamline export procedures and maintain our strong commitment to our international obligations. They will not affect the import of chemicals to this country.
I want to comment on the situation regarding the UK internal market. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is important. The more efficient regulatory process and the more timely decision making, which enable alignment with decisions made in the European Union, are expected to have minimal impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. There may be exceptional circumstances in which a different regulatory decision is made in Great Britain, but the potential impact on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a consideration in making such decisions.
Regulatory divergence has been a big concern following EU exit. In December 2024, the Northern Ireland Assembly applied to trigger the Stormont brake to ask the UK Government to prevent the application of new measures adopted into EU classification, labelling and packaging legislation. It was decided that the conditions for application of the brake were not met, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has committed to addressing the impact of regulatory divergence and to consider how to apply a consistent classification, labelling and packaging regime across the United Kingdom.
The powers in the 2023 Act, to which I have referred a couple of times, have not permitted us to make changes to introduce a consistent regime for classification, labelling and packaging now, in this statutory instrument. However, the HSE has committed to further work, throughout this year and next, on how to make updates to deliver a consistent classification and labelling regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within the UK internal market, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive run-through of those regulations and the changes proposed. I can confirm that the Opposition will not oppose the changes today; we believe, fundamentally, that overbearing and unnecessary red tape should be removed wherever possible. It is worth celebrating the fact that a Government rumoured to be exploring a path back into the EU are taking advantage of one of the benefits of being outside the EU to make these changes.
The statutory instrument amends three pieces of retained EU law. Those changes are proportionate and grounded in the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive. Collectively, they will help ensure a regulatory system that supports the economy while protecting people and the environment. However, I will briefly outline why we support each of the changes.
First, the amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense. Extending the expiry dates of 173 already approved biocidal products ensures continuity for businesses and avoids needless costs to manufacturers. These products are safe, so we completely agree that, to avoid disruption, that is the right thing to do.
Secondly, the changes to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make classification decisions, and streamline the process.
Thirdly, the changes to the prior informed consent regulation are another simplification of rules and remove overbearing requirements for exporting purposes. This is exactly the kind of regulatory reform that businesses want, and one that, we hope, will lead to growth. I hope the Government will carry out this red tape-cutting exercise across broader areas of the economy.
We will not oppose the SI today. We believe in supporting innovation, and reducing burdens on business, to drive economic growth in the future.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These regulations ensure that potentially harmful chemicals are carefully controlled, and will provide greater certainty for business, so we Liberal Democrats will not seek to divide on them, or to oppose them. However, I do have two short questions for the Minister.
First, the Minister said that this SI applies to 173 active substances, and he was good enough to give some examples of those we would particularly like to keep, such as those that clean our water so we can have access to clean drinking water. To the best of his knowledge, have any of those 173 active substances faced sustained calls to be banned because of claims related to harming either biodiversity or human health?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned, very fleetingly, that the instrument would not affect any imports; I just want to ask whether it might affect any exports. Although I recognise that the regulations apply to legal and controlled biocidal and other products, the Minister will be aware that both the UK and the EU have been criticised for exporting hazardous pesticides and biocide products that are banned in the UK, yet are exported to other countries. Will the Minister say a word or two about the Government’s policy in that area?
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Murrison, for enabling me to speak even though I am not a member of the Committee. It seems like a long time ago, but I should declare that I was a shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister and part of my portfolio included chemicals, so that is why I am here today to speak about chemicals and possible unintended consequences. I also lived through the painful immediate post-Brexit era.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for outlining so clearly the need for this delegated legislation. I understand that and welcome most of it, but I have concerns about its implementation and possible unintended consequences.
We know that since Brexit, the HSE has had significant policymaking and delegated authority powers. Where that has been exercised, decisions have often been more ad hoc and less protective than the EU’s. Since January 2021, the UK has operated its own chemical regulation system, but UK chemical regs are a casualty of Brexit and we have fallen behind the EU. I welcome the environmental improvement plan, which was introduced by this Labour Government in 2025. It is a sensible shift back towards EU-aligned protection, which is still the best in the world. However, I still have concerns about four specific areas.
First, how will the proposed changes not lead to unnecessary and undesirable divergence from the EU chemicals regulations? That is against the HSE’s explicitly stated policy. Also, how will any changes be reported to Parliament and to the devolved Administrations?
Secondly, we need exact dates for when protective EU hazard classes will be adopted in GB law. Why does this delegated legislation not enact the six new hazard clauses that the EU introduced in 2023? Northern Ireland, as the Minister outlined, already has those new hazard classes applied, so why should not the rest of us have them?
Thirdly, we need to tighten the broad and wide-ranging criteria for diverging from the EU. The HSE talks about “exceptional divergence”, but gives very broad criteria, including economic and industrial considerations. If we are talking about forever chemicals, carcinogenic or harmful biocides, we must ensure environmental and population safety before broad economic or industrial considerations.
We need clarification and transparency to ensure that we do not regress from environmental and public health protections retained in GB law post Brexit. This SI introduces changes that include postponing expiry dates to July 2031 for all biocidal active substance product type combinations. That could mean contaminated products. It could mean the continued free circulation of products in Great Britain that are blocked in the EU due to their potential to cause harm. We in the UK pride ourselves on protecting humans, animals and the environment. We should look to align closer and not diverge further from the highest chemical standards in the world—the EU’s.
I want to ask about the EU-UK reset, which the Minister alluded to. I understand negotiations are ongoing and I am not privy to behind-door conversations, but this realignment is a chance to improve our chemical safety in Great Britain. We should grab the opportunity with both hands. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I understand the need for this delegated legislation, but I press the Minister to ensure that the chemicals industry’s concerns are acknowledged and, more importantly, addressed in terms of the HSE’s remit and accountability.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this statutory instrument. I will have a go at answering the questions raised. Is there a possibility that any of these 173 substances will be banned at some point? Did I understand that correctly?
Daisy Cooper
I had two separate questions. The first was whether any of the 173 active substances have faced sustained calls to be banned already. I recognise that none are banned, but have any of them faced calls to be banned because of potential damage to biodiversity or human health?
Sir Stephen Timms
I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used.
In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.
Ruth Jones
I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all.
On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU.
There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons.
The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Lucy Rigby
Both statutory instruments are made under FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Together, the two instruments will help to deliver a more agile and responsive capital framework for UK banks and investment firms.
Following the EU exit, the UK retained a body of financial services legislation known as assimilated law, which includes the capital requirements regulation, which sets the detailed and often technical capital rules. As hon. Members know, the UK follows the FSMA model of regulation, which involves regulatory standards being set by expert independent regulators that work within a policy framework set by Government and Parliament.
The Government are now applying the FSMA model to the CRR by revoking the CRR, so that the Prudential Regulation Authority can replace requirements in legislation with requirements in PRA rules, resulting in a more user-friendly, single-source book of prudential rules for firms. Where important elements of the CRR need to stay in legislation to provide the policy framework within which the PRA must operate, those elements are restated, using powers provided under FSMA 2023.
The first SI that I will discuss is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which simply restate important definitions from the CRR that need to stay on the statute book. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated in legislation, rather than being defined by the PRA rule book. That is necessary for the continuity of existing legislation and to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of which regulatory activities should be regulated. The instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, and it does not make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and to ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended as we complete the move to the FSMA model.
The second SI that I will discuss is the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms, and the PRA intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027. That will help to ensure that the banking system is well capitalised, while giving domestic-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and to invest in the real economy, including small businesses and infrastructure projects.
We recognise, however, that the timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions remains unclear, in particular for certain market risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. That is particularly relevant for the internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms and potentially misaligned implementation, which is exactly why the Government, in conjunction with the PRA, decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach.
For the new internal model market-risk requirements, the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets, implementation will be delayed until 1 January 2028. The draft instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated internal market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 and, during that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions. The draft regulations also provide the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations. Any such extension would be time limited, subject to parliamentary approval and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.
In summary, the draft regulations bring near to completion the work to deliver a more agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. As the Minister has said, the draft regulations are pretty uncontroversial, and the Opposition will certainly not oppose them.
I have a couple of questions on the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The Minister has quite rightly said that they have been introduced in response to delays in other jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. Of course, it is very important that we remain globally competitive and do not cause any self-inflicted harm. However, can the Minister provide some more detail on why other jurisdictions are delaying the implementation of these rules? Is it procedural, or is it because they have some concerns about the rules that they are being asked to implement?
Secondly, the draft regulations allow the Treasury to extend the delay beyond 1 January 2028, which is absolutely fine—we completely understand why that might need to be the case. That will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, there are one or two concerns within the industry that this provision might create uncertainty about when the rules will actually be brought in. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave some idea about what internal tests the Treasury will use to decide whether to pursue such an extension. As I said, the Opposition support the intention behind the draft regulations, and we will certainly not be pressing them to a vote.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the draft regulations, but I wish to build on what the shadow Minister alluded to. The Minister talked about a one-year delay, but is she confident that it will be only one year? Does she believe that it may be pushed on further, hence the flexibility that has been built into the draft regulations? Some reflections from the Minister on that would be extremely welcome.
Lucy Rigby
I am very grateful to the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their input on the draft regulations. Their questions are very apt and go straight to the nub of this issue.
What is happening in other jurisdictions is really important, and that is why we are seeking to include a degree of flexibility in the draft regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we are postponing a certain element until 1 January 2028 for internationally active banks, and I set out why doing so is really important. However, there is potential for further flexibility, exactly as I said, subject to what goes on in other jurisdictions.
As I am sure the shadow EST knows, the US recently put out some revised proposals in March. Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the upshot is that the revised US proposals remain broadly aligned with international standards and the UK’s rules. Briefly, I also want to touch on the EU, because that is also very important. Again, there is broad alignment, although there has been some commentary in the press that the EU banking union is thinking about going out to an even longer date—they were talking about 2030. I think I am right in saying that we are yet to have that fully confirmed. If anything, that comes back to the importance of building in flexibility. We, particularly the PRA, need to have a sufficient degree of agility and nimbleness built into what we can do, which is the approach that we are taking. Should international circumstances change, we and the PRA need to remain alert to those positions.
For all the reasons I have set out, which I will not repeat, the draft regulations are designed to ensure that, for our internationally active banks, we do not create an undue, unnecessary and problematic degree of inconsistency between all those very important jurisdictions. As I made clear, the draft regulations allow the Treasury the power to extend the transitional period that we are putting in place, if necessary, which would then be subject to the negative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS (MISCELLANEOUS DEFINITIONS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)
Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to appear before you today, Sir Alec. The draft regulations provide an income tax exemption for non-UK resident competitors, officials and certain other designated individuals employed by or associated with the participating national teams and international federations, or otherwise involved with the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games.
The Government recognise the great benefits that all sport—including sport at the highest level—brings to this country. International tournaments inspire the next generation of athletes, bring together communities and boost the economy. I am sure that members of the Committee will be aware of the Government’s commitment to making the UK an attractive location to host world-class sporting events.
Successive Governments have provided income tax exemptions for hosting major sporting events, such as the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games, the 2023 Women’s Finalissima, the 2024 UEFA champions league final and the 2024 world athletics indoor championships. I should point out that tax exemptions of this type are reserved for only the most exceptional events. I am hopeful—indeed, confident—that the Committee will agree that this event meets that criterion.
The exemption covers income directly related to participating in the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games as well as income arising in relation to services and duties performed specifically for the event. Being exposed to taxes in two countries is administratively complex and consideration would also have to be given to matters such as withholding taxes, completing self-assessment tax returns and the relevant double taxation treaties.
The income tax exemptions for the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games further support the Government’s commitment to make the UK a global destination for world-class sport. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary played his own part in inspiring the next generation of athletes on social media during the recess.
The regulations provide a time-limited exemption from income tax for certain non-UK residents working on the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games. I am looking forward to the games and to our home athletes bringing home many medals. I also recognise the benefits that such sporting events will bring to Glasgow and more widely.
The Opposition have been pushing the Government to recognise the principle that underlies the regulations: the importance of making the UK attractive to globally mobile individuals. Sadly, more broadly, the Government have targeted such individuals through higher taxes. I therefore hope that the regulations represent a change of direction.
I have a few points to raise with the Exchequer Secretary. First, on scope, the regulations apply to “accredited persons”: individuals issued with an accreditation badge by Glasgow 2026 Ltd. Estimates say that that will impact around 9,000 non-UK residents. Will he set out what discussions His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has had with or what guidance has been issued to Glasgow 2026 Ltd on who should or should not be accredited for those purposes?
Secondly, on timing, the games run from 23 July to 2 August. Why does the exemption run from 16 July to 4 August rather than matching the dates of the games?
Thirdly, on avoidance, because trading and professional profits are covered, there could be an incentive to structure contracts so that income is characterised as games-related and performed in the UK within that exemption window. How has HMRC addressed that risk?
We will not oppose the regulations, but I would appreciate the Exchequer Secretary’s response to my three questions.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec.
Our relationship with the people and countries of the Commonwealth is something to be cherished and developed. The Commonwealth games in my city is an opportunity to do that.
The regulations help enable the Commonwealth games to take place in Glasgow this year, and, as a Glasgow MP, I welcome the Government’s support. My seat has two of the venues: the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome, and the Tollcross International Swimming Centre. The exemption is essential to enable the games to happen in my constituency.
The Glasgow games in 2014 were a great success for the economic development of our city, and I am sure that the Glasgow 2026 games will be, too. That is because my home, Glasgow, is a city of warmth and hospitality.
As set out in the Commonwealth charter, the core Commonwealth principles include mutual respect and inclusiveness. The games are an opportunity to reaffirm those principles. A good place to start is by expressing our immense gratitude to the people from the Commonwealth who have made their homes here. I also want to thank the sportspeople who have fought against racism. Examples include Craig Brown and Alex McLeish in Scotland, as well as Sunderland’s Gary Bennett and Newcastle’s Shaka Hislop. They have embodied our shared values of mutual respect and inclusiveness.
I thank the Exchequer Secretary for introducing the regulations, which are an important part of the mosaic of activities that are needed to ensure that the Commonwealth games in my brilliant home city will be a success.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
Although my constituency is almost as far as it possible to get from Glasgow, I know that my constituents will enjoy the games. As the Exchequer Secretary said, they should be an inspiration to us all, especially young people, and a celebration of the Commonwealth and the way in which diversity makes it stronger.
However, I come to the main beef. Are the regulations the sole beef in the burger of encouraging people to participate? What other financial inducements have the Government put on the table to ensure the success of the games?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank all Members for their contributions and questions. It is fantastic that the city of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East will host the Commonwealth games again. They were a great success for the country and for countries throughout the Commonwealth last time they were held in that great city. I know that it has had some difficult times lately with the fire at Glasgow Central station. I hope that this summer, we can all enjoy the best that Glasgow has to offer, including the sporting events in Glasgow East.
I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for reminding the Committee that he stands up as a thinking man’s Al Carns.
Dan Tomlinson
I spent four weeks deliberating on whether to put out that video and I deeply regret the decision to do so.
As ever, the shadow Exchequer Secretary asked important and pertinent questions. He asked why the dates do not align with those of the games. That is because many athletes will not be here for those precise dates. Those involved with the sporting teams or with the relevant accreditation may come here in the previous days and weeks. The dates have been set in the usual way; it is typical practice.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first question about accreditation, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will work closely with the Commonwealth games on that, as they have done for previous sporting events, to ensure that the right people are accredited. He also asked whether HMRC will ensure that income is treated and taxed correctly and appropriately. I give the previous Government credit for making progress on closing the tax gap. We are glad to continue with that. The tax gap has fallen this year and is set to fall further over the rest of the Parliament. We will of course keep a weather eye on the activities of those coming here.
The hon. Member for Torbay asked an important question about what else the Government are doing to support the Commonwealth games. Last June, we pledged to spend at least £400 million on grassroots facilities over the next four years to support those who live in close proximity to the games. I hope that those who are considering competing will not just think about whether they have to pay tax in two countries or the double taxation treaties, but will find an inducement in participating and celebrating their skills, training and hard work. Perhaps the joy of a medal will also be an inducement.
Again, I thank Members for their contributions and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members please to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 3
Trial on indictment without a jury: general rule for allocation
Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4).—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)
This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Review of impact of provisions of section 3—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the impact of the provisions of section 3 during each relevant period.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant periods are—
(a) before the end of 12 months, and
(b) no sooner than 35 months but no later than 36 months
beginning on the day on which section 3 of this Act is commenced.
(3) Reviews under this section must consider the impact of the provisions of sections 74A to 74D of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as inserted by Section 3 of this Act, on persons who—
(a) are from any ethnic minority background;
(b) are White British and live in lower income households.”
This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to review, after one year and three years, the impact of the provisions of section 3 on people who are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and on White people from lower-income households.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Ms Jardine.
As Members will have heard me say on countless occasions, the pressures on our criminal courts are unprecedented. I do not intend to rehearse arguments that have been made many times in the House. There is a broad consensus that urgent action is required, and it is in that context that I turn to clause 3, which provides for trial by judge alone in cases likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less.
Clause 3 introduces a new judge-only division of the Crown court—the so-called bench division—to hear less serious cases without a jury. This does not create a separate jurisdiction; one’s case will still be heard in the Crown court if assigned to the bench division. The same appeal route that is currently available from the Crown court will still be available. The clause operates to provide that certain either-way cases defined by the seriousness threshold in the legislation will be tried by a judge sitting alone in a Crown court.
The evidence we heard in Committee is that sitting with judge alone saves time. A former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, told us he was convinced that
“the time saving will be enormous if the relatively low-level cases are tried by a new constitution.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 76, Q161.]
Similarly, Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario, said in evidence to us that there is “no question” but that judge-alone cases are “faster”, and that that is borne out by the data there.
Let me be clear, as I have tried to be clear a number of times: jury trials will remain in place for the most serious crimes. Indictable-only offences such as murder, rape, armed robbery, grievous bodily harm with intent and arson endangering life will never be heard without a jury. But it remains the case that while jury trials are not at fault for the delays, although jury trials only account for 3% of all criminal trial cases they take up approximately 60% of Crown court hearing time, and the independent review’s findings show that jury trials take twice as long now as they did in 2000.
As Sir Brian Leveson told the Committee, trials have become longer and more complex for many reasons, due to the high volume of digital evidence now central to many prosecutions, and the consequence is clear that the delays are rising, and victims and defendants alike are waiting longer for justice. The independent review of the criminal courts estimates that judge-only trials can reduce hearing time by at least 20% and save Crown court time—a figure that Sir Brian himself describes in his review as “conservative”—and those savings will generate more capacity for jury trials where they are most needed.
Critics have said that this measure would produce no time saving at all, but the Committee heard from respected members of the judiciary that that is not the case, and that judge-only trials would save time in practical and important ways, by encouraging more realistic guilty pleas, by avoiding the delays inherent in empanelling and managing a jury, by allowing evidence to begin earlier in the day, and by reducing the disruption caused by juror absence or delay.
As I have set out, the application of these changes would apply to cases in the existing backlog where a trial has not already commenced. It is because we must tackle the mounting caseload in the Crown court as soon as we can that we are implementing the measures in this way. The clause allows cases in the current open Crown court caseload where a trial has not yet begun to be considered under the new allocation test. Trials should take place in accordance with the law as it stands, and applying the new regime to cases in the open caseload will help us begin to reduce delay from the outset. This is a practical step to ensure that the courts can make the best use of available capacity.
The clause also provides safeguards in the form of reallocation provisions, as we have debated. Cases can, and sometimes do, evolve as they progress through the courts, and the clause makes clear provision for cases to be reallocated to a jury trial where the seriousness increases, even after a judge-only trial has begun. The intention of the clause is not to remove jury trials for the most serious cases in our justice system, and where an indictable-only offence is added to a bench division case, it will always be reallocated to a jury trial.
The Government have been clear: we have made the investment in courts that people have been calling for, by uncapping sitting days as well as investment in our workforce through legal aid, but investment alone is not enough. The pressures on the system require structural reform, because it was not designed to withstand the challenges of both the present backlog and the profile of modern criminal trials. We are seeing a growing number of remand cases entering the system, and those cases must be prioritised for hearing in order to meet statutory custody time limits. That in turn pushes other serious cases where the defendant is on bail, including rape and serious sexual offences, further down the list.
The consequences of those delays are not abstract. Longer waits mean longer periods in which the accused may remain on bail, which places greater pressure on policing and monitoring, while victims and complainants endure prolonged uncertainty and distress. Persistent delay, as we have learned, also distorts behaviour across the system, encouraging defendants to postpone guilty pleas in the hope that witnesses, and sometimes victims, will lose confidence as cases drift further into the future. That cannot be right. That is not justice, and it is not sustainable.
The failings of our system were laid bare, not just by the independent review but by the Committee, when we heard most powerfully from victims of crime themselves. We need a more modern model of criminal justice that serves those affected by these failings, and clause 3 is an important part of delivering that change.
I would like to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington, and hear the debate in Committee, before I set out the Government’s position on new clause 29. It may be convenient, therefore, Ms Jardine, to hear from my hon. Friend at this juncture.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am sure we will get to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington shortly.
The proposal in clause 3 is being framed as a mere administrative adjustment—a common-sense fix for a system under strain. The Government’s plan to introduce a Crown court bench division, where a judge sits alone without magistrates to decide the fate of those accused of either-way offences, is being sold to the public as a remedy for the backlogs that currently paralyse our courts. But we must be clear from the outset that the crisis in our courts is not the result of the jury system. The backlog, which sees tens of thousands of cases waiting for a hearing, is the result of long-term challenges and the unprecedented impact of covid on our justice system.
Eroding a defendant’s right to a trial by their peers is not a fix; it is a fundamental reconfiguration of the English legal system. Across the Bill, we see a pattern emerging: a shift away from what we are clear is the gold standard of justice towards a swift model. The evidence supporting it is dangerously thin, and we must resist the permanent eroding of a right that has stood for hundreds and hundreds of years.
The right to a jury trial is often described as fundamental. It is not merely a traditional quirk of our system; it is an important constitutional safeguard. The core of the Government’s plan, as outlined in their impact assessment and the Second Reading briefings, is to remove the right to elect. Currently, if someone is charged with an either-way offence—crimes like theft, assault or certain drug offences—they have a right to choose whether they are tried by a jury in the Crown court or by magistrates. The Government’s plan to strip away that choice in clause 3, under a new bench division model for when the sentence outcome is likely to be three years or less, will remove even the role of lay magistrates from the decision.
The briefing provided by the organisation JUSTICE, which I have referred to several times, makes a compelling case against that. JUSTICE points out that the right to elect is a long-standing protection that ensures that a defendant can seek the judgment of a diverse group of citizens when they feel the state’s power is being unfairly applied. By removing that right, we are effectively saying that the state knows better than the citizen how they should be judged. This is not unheard of, as we have talked about before, but clause 3, combined with previous clauses, represents it being done at a scale never seen before.
This is a dangerous path. When we move cases from juries to a bench division, we are moving from a system of community participation to a system of professionalised adjudication. The jury is the part of our constitution where the greatest number of ordinary citizens have a direct, hands-on role in the administration of justice. It is the primary way that the public grant their consent to the upholding of criminal law. If we remove the public from the process, we risk the law becoming something done to people, rather than something that belongs to them.
The Government’s narrative suggests that a judge-led bench division will be just as fair as a jury, only faster. But it ignores the fundamental and unique aspect of fairness delivered by a jury trial, which they acknowledge by continuing to maintain jury trials for what they describe as the “more serious” offences. A jury is, by definition, balanced. It consists of 12 people from different backgrounds, with different life experiences and different biases, in the crucible of the jury room. Their diversity is its greatest strength; a single judge, no matter how well intentioned, cannot possibly replicate that breadth of perspective.
There is also the phenomenon of being case-hardened: when a professional judge or magistrate hears 50 similar cases of theft or assault in a year, there is a natural human tendency to begin seeing patterns rather than individuals. Evidence that might seem fresh or potentially exonerating to a jury can seem like the usual excuse to a professional who has heard it hundreds of times before.
Juries bring fresh eyes; they are not jaded by the grind of the system. They are instructed to look only at the facts of the case before them. That is why juries are considered—by the Opposition, at least—to be the gold standard. The evidence submitted to the Committee warns that we lack clarity as to why the Government are so eager to discard this standard. If the jury is the best way to ensure an accurate and fair verdict, the burden of proof for removing it must be exceptionally high.
Furthermore, the bench division model threatens to undermine the lay element of our justice system. Originally, as recommended in the Leveson review, the idea was that a judge would sit with two magistrates. That was intended to maintain at least some form of community involvement. However, clause 3 moves towards judge-only trials for many cases, discarding even the judge-plus-two compromise.
I will now address the primary argument made by the Minister in her opening remarks. The Government claim that moving to the bench division will significantly reduce the backlog. However, the Institute for Government has produced an insightful analysis, which we have referred to frequently, suggesting that the evidence for those savings is incredibly weak.
The IFG points out that the vast majority of Crown court time is not actually spent on the types of trials that the Government want to move to the bench division. The cases being targeted are the less serious ones, which already take up less time than more complex cases such as murder, which will remain subject to jury trial. According to the IFG’s modelling, if judge-only trials are 20% faster than a jury trial, the total impact on the overall Crown court backlog would be a reduction of 2%. When we consider the constitutional cost of us losing, at this unprecedented scale, the right to access a jury, that is simply not sufficient.
The backlog is not caused by juries being slow; it is more often caused by ineffective trials that are postponed because witnesses do not show up, because solicitors or barristers are unavailable, or because courtrooms are not fit to operate in. These are systemic failures, and moving a trial from a jury to a judge does not make a witness appear or fix a broken courtroom.
The Bill proposes a threshold of cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years being diverted to the bench division. Predicting a sentence before a trial is never an exact science, and that is something that magistrates actually have more experience of than judges. That unprecedented scenario—without the safeguards that we sought to add through a right of appeal, which the Government rejected—will create huge questions of impartiality and bias.
A three-year sentence is not a minor matter. Three years in prison is a life-altering event. It can mean the loss of a home, a career and a family. To suggest that a person facing such a consequence does not deserve what they consider to be the fairest possible trial betrays that principle of fairness in our justice system when the consequences are so severe.
There is also the issue of the absence of a sunset clause. If these measures are truly a temporary response to tackle an emergency backlog, they should include a sunset clause that ensures that rights are restored once the crisis has passed. As I have said previously, changes were made during world war two and then reversed when the war was over. The fact that the Government have resisted such a clause suggests that this is not a temporary fix, but a permanent land grab by the state. Once the right to a jury is surrendered for either-way offences, it is highly unlikely that any future Government will be in a position to restore it.
We must see the Crown court bench division for what it is: a policy of convenience, not a policy delivering justice. It is a policy that ignores the findings of the IFG, which would require us to focus more heavily on other elements of the system. It is a policy that ignores the warnings from JUSTICE, which highlight the erosion of the defendant’s right to elect and its impact on public confidence and fairness in the judicial system. It is a policy that even ignores the original, more balanced recommendations of the Leveson review, which at least sought to keep lay magistrates involved.
We are told that we must modernise and that we must be efficient. The purpose of a criminal trial is not to process cases as quickly as possible; it is to arrive at the truth through a process that the defendant, the victim and the public have trust in. If we allow the Government to erode the jury system in the name of the backlog on this occasion to this extent, we are sending a message that this constitutional right is highly conditional, and that it can be traded away whenever the state finds it too expensive or too cumbersome to maintain. As the Minister frequently points out, lots of countries do without it; “Why shouldn’t we?” will be the next argument.
Instead of stripping away rights, the Government should be more focused on the areas that we can all agree on: prisoner transport, early legal advice, more efficient listing, Crown Prosecution Service reviews of cases in the backlog, facilities that work and IT that works. We do not fix a house by tearing it down to its foundations because the roof is leaking; we fix the roof. Jury trials ensure that our laws remain grounded in the common sense of ordinary people. Let us apply some of that common sense to tackling this issue. Common sense will lead us to oppose clause 3.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Clause 3 and its various parts outline how trials can take place without juries. The Liberal Democrats have always fundamentally opposed the move to remove the right to a trial in front of one’s peers and the introduction of single-judge trials. To be clear, we do not accept the status quo and neither does anyone who I have spoken to in the legal profession or courts. The backlogs are totally unacceptable and they are failing victims, defendants and the people working in the criminal justice system. But no one in that system thinks that the fault lies with the jury trial system. In fact, Sir Brian stated that in our recent evidence session.
The decision is being made without any decisive modelling that would demonstrate that it would have the intended effect. There is also a timing issue with the proposal to restrict the use of a jury. Nationally, we have seen an intense displeasure with our democracy, and faith in politics and our political system is at an all-time low. It is fractured and deeply distrustful. When we have mistrust in our political system, it seeps into our justice system. Around six in 10 people express a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in juries delivering the right verdict compared with around four in 10 for courts and judges more generally.
Clause 3 proposes something that will risk a great deal without the evidence that shows it will actually work. That is why it is so strongly opposed. The Government instead should be implementing evidence-based reforms to target inefficiencies, including but not limited to negotiating the failed prisoner escort contract, introducing victim-led intensive case management across the regions, and investing in rehabilitation to reduce reoffending. They could also explore reducing the court backlog by running two trials in a day in select courtrooms instead of one, making more efficient use of time by nearly doubling the hearing time per sitting day and accelerating the throughput of cases. They could also develop and implement a more ambitious strategy to reduce delays in rape and serious sexual offences cases, or implement their own manifesto pledge to introduce speciality RASSO courts, which we will no doubt debate at a later stage of the Bill.
I am confident that the Minister will say, as she did in the evidence session, “Why is the backlog not coming down if we can make the system work better?” She put that question to Caroline Goodwin KC, Claire Davies KC and Samantha Hillas KC, saying,
“I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits.”
Caroline Goodwin came back with:
“The reality is that we have not been able to do this. Because there has been a consistent cap on sitting days, judges have not been able to open up court days. They have not been able to run blitz days where they can really take hold of a case and shake it and say, ‘Right, what is going on?’ We have not had any great directives to the CPS to say, ‘When you’re charging these cases, you need to review these very thoroughly.’ Throughout this entire time, the criminal Bar and the entire justice system has been brought to its knees. So if you are saying, ‘Is there any empirical evidence that this doesn’t work on your circuit, Ms Goodwin?’, we have not been able to do it.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 48, Q94.]
Why do we believe that we need to protect the safeguard of a jury trial while still reforming the criminal courts in other ways? The Lammy review in 2017 found that black and Chinese women were convicted at higher rates than white women in magistrate courts but not by juries. The Criminal Bar Association commissioned an independent study of criminal barristers; of the 2,029 who responded, 94% raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the Crown court bench division and 88% were against the introduction of a Crown court bench division altogether.
If we take the figures in the impact assessment that the Government have provided at face value, the proposal will save 5,000 sitting days per annum. That is around 3.5% of the Crown court workload. That means that rape complainants or victims who are currently waiting years for their own trial to be heard might see their cases brought forward by about a week. On the Government’s own estimates, the changes will not start taking effect until after the next general election. It is not providing a solution to the current crisis. Indeed, the impact assessment was based on a premise that it compared “do nothing” with the effects of all of the Government’s measures proposed in the Bill, but nobody is proposing “do nothing”. Radical investment and reform is already taking place and is welcomed. The Government were right to introduce removing the cap on sitting days and encourage blitz courts in a number of courts in the different regions. That has cross-party support and will bring down the backlog by more direct means.
I would also like to briefly highlight the perversity in the cut-off of three years. Let us take the case of a 20-year-old student charged with unlawful wounding, where someone’s face was gashed by a glass thrown in a bar. Under the sentencing guidelines, if they were of good character they would face imprisonment of between two and three years. That conviction would be life changing and that young defendant would not qualify for trial by jury under these proposals. Let us take exactly the same case, but involving a 40-year-old defendant with a long criminal record who has been to prison before. Because of their record, the likely sentence for the same offence would exceed three years and they would get trial by jury, whereas a young man with no convictions would not. I ask the Committee to reflect on the perversity created by changing the threshold.
I conclude by reiterating that clause 3, which sets out how the Crown court should allocate a case for trial without a jury and the procedure, should not be included in the Bill, and I shall vote against its inclusion.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to the new clause that is tabled in my name, which I do not intend to push to a vote. It would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the impact of clause 3 after 12 months, and again after no later than 36 months. At its heart, the new clause is both modest and reasonable. It does not seek to block the Government’s proposals outright, nor does it attempt to rewrite the substance of the Bill. It simply asks that we understand the impact of the changes we are making and that we are accountable for them.
As Members across the House know, clause 3 introduces significant changes to the operation of the courts, particularly through the insertion of the new provisions into the Senior Courts Act 1981. Those provisions mark a clear shift in how justice is delivered. When we make changes of this scale, we have a duty not only to legislate, but to reflect on their impact and remain accountable for the consequences.
The Law Society of England and Wales has raised concerns that reforms to court processes must be carefully monitored to ensure they do not inadvertently undermine access to justice, particularly for those who already face barriers in navigating the legal system. These concerns are drawn from the experience of legal practitioners working day to day in the courts, particularly in cases involving litigants in person who often are trying to navigate complex procedures without legal representation. It has also emphasised the importance of evaluating how such changes operate in practice, including their impact on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and on the capacity of the courts to deliver justice effectively.
The society has made it clear that such changes can have unintended consequences that are often felt most by the people who already struggle to access justice. That goes directly to public confidence in the justice system. Surely, trust and perception in the justice system are just as important as the legal framework itself. Concerns have also been raised by the Family Services Foundation, which highlights how procedural changes can disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals and families already facing complex challenges. That reflects its work with the families involved in the court system, where even small procedural changes can have a significant impact on people who are already dealing with instability, stress or crisis situations.
New clause 29 would ensure that Parliament receives clear evidence-based assessments of how the provisions are working in practice. Crucially, it would require that the assessments consider the impact on two groups: people from ethnic minority backgrounds and white British individuals living in lower-income households. As highlighted in earlier stages of the scrutiny of the Bill, there is a lack of clear statutory review built into the provisions, in particular in clause 3.
Some may ask, why specify those groups? The answer is simple—because justice is not experienced equally by all. We know all too well through evidence, lived experience and countless testimonies that people from ethnic minority communities often have lower levels of trust in the criminal justice system. That shapes how justice is perceived and whether it is seen as legitimate. For ethnic minority communities, this is fundamentally about trust in the justice system and perception of fairness.
Equally, we must recognise that socioeconomic disadvantage can profoundly affect a person’s experience of the courts. White British individuals from lower-income households are also more likely to feel marginalised by systems that appear distant, complex or unresponsive to their circumstances. If this House is serious about fairness, we must be serious about understanding how reforms affect those who are most at risk of being left behind.
New clause 29 does not assume the outcome. It does not claim that the provisions of clause 3 will necessarily have a negative impact, but it does recognise that without proper review, we simply will not know. That in itself would be a failure of our responsibility as legislators. The timeline set out in the new clause—a review after 12 months and a further review no later than after 36 months—strikes a careful balance. The reviews allow for early identification of any emerging issues, while also ensuring that long-term effects are properly understood. Importantly, the reviews would be laid before Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling this House to scrutinise the findings. If the changes are working well, a review would demonstrate that; if they are not, a review would give us the opportunity to put things right.
I urge Members across the House to support new clause 29, not as a challenge to the Bill, but as a practical step towards fairness, transparency and accountability in our justice system. This House should be confident in reforms, but it should also be confident in knowing when to pause, assess and reflect. That is all that the new clause asks for.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I wish to address a number of issues in relation to this grouping. First, I will say something about the figures that have been quoted at length today and in previous sittings. Secondly, I will say something about the reasons given by the Government for curtailing jury trials in this way. Then I want to go on to say something about evidence and procedure, and why jury trials exist at all, because sometimes it is possible to sit here listening, wondering whether the Government’s reasoning would not justify a banning of all jury trials for evermore on any crime. Finally, I will talk about some of the perversities that the hon. Member for Chichester has articulated well.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I will keep my contribution brief. I want to speak in support of new clause 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington. It is clear that Government Members accept the need for reform but, as we go through those reforms, it is also important to keep one eye on ensuring justice for everyone in our society. We know that historically the criminal justice system has not ensured equal opportunity for everyone in our society—there are inequalities within it.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State and the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to reviewing the reforms in the future to ensure that they do not exacerbate inequalities in the system. I look forward to hearing the Minister continue to reassure the Committee that that is the Government’s commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington is a tireless campaigner on these issues, and she made an outstanding speech. I will not add anything further to it, other than to thank her for tabling the new clause and introducing the debate.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As the Committee has likely anticipated, I will argue that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 is the heart of the Government’s constitutional gamble. It creates a wholly new general rule for trial on indictment without a jury in a substantial category of criminal cases. Under the clause, a defendant charged with an either-way offence who has pleaded not guilty will lose the right to be tried by a jury unless the court considers that, on conviction, they would be likely to receive a sentence of more than three years’ imprisonment. It also allows reallocation later if the case changes, says that there is no right of appeal against allocation or reallocation, permits some decisions to be made without a hearing, and still allows a judge sitting alone to impose a sentence of more than three years.
The Government continue to maintain that this change is necessary to reduce the Crown court backlog and reserve jury trials for the most serious cases. I note, though, that the very good House of Commons Library briefing points out that these provisions are based only in part on Leveson, and contain material differences from that which he recommended. Sir Brian proposed restricting, not abolishing, the right to elect, he did not propose the same increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers, and the Government’s model is more aggressive than the one on which much of the original discussion was based.
JUSTICE makes the same point directly in its written evidence. It says that the Bill goes further than the review by removing the right to elect entirely, replacing the full rehearing appeal from the magistrates court with a permission stage, allowing the extension of magistrates’ custodial powers to 18 or 24 months, and introducing judge-only trials for either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less.
I say that at the outset because I am keen to avoid the suggestion that the Bill amounts to the Government reluctantly implementing a difficult but expert-led recommendation. That is simply not the case in clause 3. In fact, we are dealing with a discretionary political choice to legislate in a way that is broader, harder and less cautious than many of the evidence-based alternatives that are already on the table. As the Law Society put it:
“Clauses 1 to 7 represent radical changes to criminal procedure without convincing evidence that they will improve efficiency.”
The Bar Council says:
“Radical changes to the availability of jury trials…are unnecessary and will consume resources without bearing down on the backlog.”
That is the proper context in which clause 3 should be considered.
As much for my own clarity as for the benefit of the Committee, I would like to dedicate a limited amount of time to clarifying what the clause actually does. It inserts into the Senior Courts Act 1981 proposed new sections 74A to 74D, which create a mechanism under which, in a very wide category of cases, the court must decide at the outset whether a defendant will be tried by a jury or by a single judge alone. The central test is the threshold sentence: whether the defendant, if convicted, would be likely to receive more than three years’ imprisonment or detention. If the likely sentence is above that threshold, the defendant gets a jury; if not, the default is a judge-alone trial in what the Government and stakeholders have described as the Crown court bench division, although that phrase is not used in the Bill itself.
This is about not a tiny number of trivial cases but a structural redesign of the Crown court’s work. According to the Government’s own modelling, about 14,000 cases would continue arriving at the Crown court in 2028-29 and would require a trial, of which approximately 4,000 are expected to be heard by a judge alone, rather than a jury. The package is said to reduce Crown court sitting day demand by 27,000 days a year while increasing magistrates court sitting day demand by 8,500. Even if one accepts every assumption behind those figures—many serious people do not—they demonstrate that this is a major transfer of work and power. The offences within scope are not, as has sometimes been implied, confined to the sort of minor petty theft case used in media briefings.
The written evidence from JUSTICE makes that point bluntly. Clause 3 would cover a huge number of either-way offences, including
“sexual offences, sexual abuse of children, stalking, fraud offences, violence against the person offences and theft offences.”
JUSTICE offers a chilling practical illustration with this observation:
“Most of the postmasters wrongly convicted in the Horizon scandal received a sentence under three years.”
That point ought to give the Committee serious pause. We are being asked to remove jury trial for the types of case in which miscarriages of justice have historically occurred.
The centrepiece of clause 3 is the idea that a court can safely determine, at an early stage, whether a defendant is likely to receive more than three years if convicted, and that that prediction is a just and adequate basis for deciding whether the defendant gets a jury at all. I do not accept that. More importantly, the Bill itself does not truly accept it either. The Commons Library briefing I referenced earlier notes this contradiction plainly:
“While cases that are less likely to result in a sentence of more than three years would be allocated for trial by a judge alone, the judge could still pass a custodial sentence of more than three years.”
In other words, the very legislation that uses the three-year threshold as the decisive basis for removing jury trials simultaneously recognises that the threshold may not map on to the final seriousness of the case at all. The initial allocation may say that the case is not serious enough for a jury, yet the final outcome may be serious enough for more than three years in prison. If that is not an admission that the threshold is an unstable and unsafe proxy, I do not know what is.
Does that not cut to the most basic but most profound concern about this Bill—that it just is not fair? If the threshold cannot reliably distinguish the cases that merit a jury from those that do not, the clause is not preserving jury trial for the most serious cases. It is rationing jury trial on the basis of an impressionistic and sometimes speculative sentence prediction. The written evidence from the London School of Economics says exactly that, stating that the three-year threshold
“is a poor metric for determining the right trial procedure”
and that if jury trial is a
“cornerstone protection against the state”,
alternative measures ought to be exhausted first.
We cannot properly predict a sentence at the plea and trial preparation hearing, and in the context of clause 3, that is a problem. If the allocation decision is to be made at the hearing, the notion that a judge can decide the likely sentence then and there is, in many cases, unrealistic and, at the extreme, absurd. In many cases, the evidence is incomplete at the PTPH. In sexual offences, full achieving better evidence transcripts are often unavailable, and practitioners rely on summaries. CCTV may not yet have been watched in full, medical evidence may be outstanding and the victim impact, which can materially affect a sentence, may be unknown. Sometimes the complainant is still in hospital. It may well be that the psychiatric or psychological impact becomes clear only weeks or months later. Yet the clause asks the court to decide mode of trial at exactly this sensitive and uncertain stage. The Government are therefore building a supposedly rational system on a procedural moment that practitioners know, and I am sure the Minister knows, is often evidentially immature.
The Committee will remember reading the Victims’ Commissioner’s written evidence, which accepts the need for reform but recognises the concern that sentencing ranges vary and that the evidential picture may be incomplete when the crucial decision is taken. JUSTICE likewise says that the proposal risks unfairness because the allocation and reallocation system lengthens the PTPH and depends on speculative assumptions about how much court time will actually be saved. The Bar Council adds that the Bill gives no schedule or annexe identifying categories of offence; instead, a Crown court judge will simply assess in individual cases whether the likely sentence exceeds three years, meaning that the determination is case specific, contestable and uncertain from the outset.
I can well imagine the response to all that being that if circumstances change, the case can be reallocated, but to my mind that is not a defence of the clause; it is an admission that the initial prediction is often too flimsy to bear the weight placed on it. As any King’s counsel will readily point out, real criminal cases are not static things. Charges are amended, defendants are added and new evidence emerges. Perhaps a section 18 becomes a section 20. When something like that happens, is it seriously proposed that the case repeatedly cycles through reallocation every time? Clause 3 says yes, at least in substance.
Proposed new section 74B provides for a formal reallocation mechanism where there is a relevant change of circumstances, including changes in the indictment or new evidence affecting likely sentence. The problem is that that does not solve the uncertainty; it adds another layer of litigation, or at least potential litigation. It invites both sides to argue over whether the threshold position has changed, whether reallocation is required, whether the change is sufficiently material, what prejudice would be caused by moving the case, whether delay, wasted cost or witness inconvenience should prevail, and what happens if the case is already part way down the tracks. Frankly, that sounds like a dream come true for a solicitor’s billing manager, but the rest of us can surely see the problem.
JUSTICE and the Bar Council have both picked up on that point. JUSTICE notes that the
“allocation of cases is going to lengthen the plea and trial preparation hearing as will the process of reallocation”,
and it warns that the absence of any right of appeal against allocation decisions is likely to increase judicial reviews and Court of Appeal litigation. In the Bar Council’s written evidence, it states:
“The proposed Crown Court Bench Division introduces an extra layer of hearings and complication…It could result in further litigation at an interlocutory stage.”
It argues that one of the Bill’s fundamental flaws is precisely the fact that it presents a false binary: either do nothing, or do this. The Bill does not properly assess a range of other policy options.
Having made those points, I would like to pose a question to the Minister, which I think may shed some light on where we are with the clause. Has the additional work needed at both Crown court and magistrates court level for allocation, reallocation, submissions and case management been factored into the claimed 27,000 sitting day decrease and 8,500 sitting day increase? If the answer is yes, can we get some insight into precisely where and how? If the answer is no, the core productivity claim behind clause 3 is overstated from the start.
If clause 3 were merely a bad threshold coupled with an elaborate reallocation maze, that would be bad enough. However, the Government have compounded the problem by providing no right of appeal against allocation or reallocation decisions, and by permitting some decisions to be made without a hearing. Under proposed new section 74D, there would be no right of appeal against an allocation or reallocation determination made under proposed new sections 74A or 74B, and a reallocation determination could be made without a hearing. That is extraordinary. A defendant may lose trial by jury on the basis of an early-stage sentence prediction, under a mechanism that the Government know may need to be revisited as the case develops, yet there is no appeal.
JUSTICE warns that the likely consequence of the proposal is judicial review pressure on the High Court, and appeal pressure on the Court of Appeal once written reasons are handed down, meaning that the supposed efficiency savings may be displaced into other courts. The Bar Council says much the same; it proposes, as a minimum safeguard, that there should be a hearing before reallocation, unless the parties waive it, and that there should be an appeal right. The absence of appeal is especially troubling because summary trial has historically been justified by two safeguards: lower-level offences and the ability to appeal. The Bill proposes to remove both. It moves up the seriousness of cases, while stripping away the classic safeguard of easy correction—that is not a tolerable bargain.
Although the Committee has already debated the retrospectivity point at some length, clause 3 itself remains infected by it. The new allocation procedure will apply to cases already in the Crown court open caseload, including cases where the defendant has already been arraigned at a PTPH before the new regime comes into force, so long as the prosecution has not yet opened its case. For those cases, the court must make a determination under proposed new section 74A as soon as is reasonably practicable, and may do so without a hearing. That means that a defendant who chose a Crown court trial, expecting a jury, may wait months, prepare for that jury and then lose it retrospectively.
The Minister herself has defended that approach by saying that the Government are on sound legal ground, and that there is no procedural or legal impediment, relying on advice from—as I recall—an unnamed KC. However, political defensibility and legal ingenuity are not the same as fairness. To put this in very plain terms, people did not opt to go to Crown court for the car parking or the architecture; they chose it for one thing only—a jury. To move the goalposts after the choice is made is profoundly unfair, regardless of other considerations.
The Committee will recall reading through the written evidence from some eminent groups and individuals that, in as many words, call this retrospective application contrary to the rule of law. The Bar Council says:
“The retrospective provisions may also be subject to numerous legal challenges.”
Dr Samantha Fairclough argues that the plan is unfair, and she says:
“It will also create significant additional work…and likely result in appeals.”
That all points in the same direction. Retrospectivity here is not just constitutionally unattractive; it will ultimately prove to be practically self-defeating.
A very large part of the Government’s case for clause 3 rests on the impact assessment, which says that clauses 1 to 7 will reduce Crown court sitting days by 27,000 a year, while increasing magistrates court sitting days by 8,500. It also says that the Crown court open caseload will fall by around 14,000 cases over 2028-2029, and that
“overall the reforms will reduce demand on Crown Court time by almost 20%”.
However, several stakeholders have criticised the assumptions and modelling, especially those on how much time judge-only trials would save. The Government’s core assumption is that hearing times will fall by 20% for judge-only trials, but Sir Brian himself accepted that this was associated with high levels of uncertainty, and the Justice Committee challenged how anecdotal the basis for that figure appeared to be.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member has not done anything disorderly or out of order in any way, but I remind Members that the House has agreed that this Committee must conclude its work by 5 pm on Tuesday 28 April. I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, and it is for the Committee to decide how it uses its time, but I gently encourage Members to consider the length of speeches in the light of the desire of all Members to speak in the debate and on the later parts of the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
I thank you for making that point, Ms Jardine. I just emphasise how serious the changes in this legislation are. I know the Opposition are willing to put in the hours that are needed to go through the full detail, so that everyone can say what they need to. I imagine the Government are equally keen to spend the hours required to do full justice to the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
Absolutely, Ms Jardine—we can go into the early hours of the morning if we need to, and I am happy to do so this evening if that is what people would like to do.
In cases of offensive communications, malicious communications, harassment, stalking and other digital evidence-related cases, the line between criminality and obnoxiousness can be fact-sensitive and context-heavy. We have all seen how politically sensitive a question this has become. We should remember, too, that some of these cases are driven almost entirely by screenshots and unauthenticated digital material, which may be manipulated, selectively presented or forensically thin.
The Chair
I say gently that if we are referring to the Lammy review we give it its name, and if we are talking about the Secretary of State we refer to him as that and not just his name.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for tabling new clause 29, which I support. It is a long-standing principle, established in the case of R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, that justice must be done and be seen to be done. It is famous as a legal precedent in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.
To be confident in our criminal justice system, the public need to be satisfied that it is fair. New clause 29 would provide important reassurance that there is a check and balance in place to review the changes the Bill introduces, and that any issues of bias arising from a trial without jury can and will be addressed.
The Chair
Order. As I have said, if you are referring to the Secretary of State, can you use his title?
Linsey Farnsworth
I do apologise, Ms Jardine.
The report by the Deputy Prime Minister, as he is now, was conducted almost a decade ago. It highlighted concern about the sentencing decisions of judges, so it is often cited—understandably—as a reason to be cautious about judge-only trials. New clause 29 would ensure that a review of judge-only trials will be conducted after a year, and should there be disparities in the conviction rates for those of an ethnic minority background and/or for white British persons living in lower-income households, measures can and will be put in place to prevent such disparities from arising.
It is also right that a further review is conducted between 35 and 36 months after enactment, as the new clause suggests, both to check the initial findings and to take account of the fact that things can change. In the review conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, it was found that where CPS charging decisions were concerned, a defendant’s ethnicity did not affect the likelihood of their being charged. However, subsequent research conducted by the University of Leeds, in which the outcomes of decision making in 195,000 cases between 2018 and 2021 were examined, identified evidence of disproportionality in CPS decision making. Specifically, defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds were significantly more likely to be charged than a white British defendant for a comparable offence.
Additional research by the independent disproportionality advisory group and scrutiny by the CPS itself has led to an action plan to tackle the disproportionality that was found to exist, and to deliver change. There is precedent for ongoing review of disparities in outcomes within the criminal justice system where ethnicity is concerned, and precedent for action being taken to address such disparities.
Recent research by the University of Birmingham identified concern about racial bias within juries, particularly when there is no representation of ethnic minorities among the 12 people serving on a jury. This research cited a case in which an attack on the victim was caught on CCTV, yet in May 2022 a jury with no black members acquitted most of the perpetrators. The researchers concluded that their study raised important questions about whether the public in England and Wales see juries as being fair and just in relation to racial minorities, and that juries in England and Wales remain extremely lacking in diversity; that is what the study found. Another problem the study identified in that case was that the concerns of victims’ families about racial bias among the jury were never investigated.
Linsey Farnsworth
No. I will make some progress; we need to make progress today.
The researchers found that more than 90% of respondents in the survey they conducted believed that discrimination on juries should be reported to trial judges and properly investigated, yet there is no mechanism under current law that allows juries to do so.
Appeal, a not-for-profit organisation, has submitted evidence opposing some elements of the Bill. However, in a paper that it prepared in 2024, Appeal set out concerns relating to majority decisions, as opposed to unanimous jury decisions, and the impact of racial bias. The case of R v. Connor et al was cited, in which questions from the jury suggested that there had been a focus on the defendant’s race and a letter from a juror after conviction confirmed racial bias in the jury’s deliberations.
Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for confidentiality in jury decision making. However section 8A, enacted in Scotland, permits the Lord Justice General to allow information about deliberations from the jury room to be disclosed for the purposes of research. That provides an opportunity for the same to follow in England and Wales. Recent statistics show an increase in hate crime, including crime based on race and religion, rates of which spiked after Brexit and, recently, following the Southport murders. Now more than ever, we must be conscious of the impact that discrimination could have on the fairness, or otherwise, of jury trial.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am about to conclude, so I will not.
I support new clause 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington, but I submit that the change and modernisation that the Bill seeks to introduce bring an opportunity to review all aspects of the criminal justice system in relation to ethnicity and socioeconomic background to ensure fairness for all.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I want to comment on two points. First, I agree entirely with the speech of the hon. Member for Chichester on the problem with clause 3 and jury allocation, and I especially agree with her point about the retrospective reallocation of cases, whereby people waiting for trial by jury will suddenly find that their case will be removed from the jury and heard elsewhere. She outlined in comprehensive detail all the issues—not just jurisprudence issues but legal and factual issues. I support what she said so I will not repeat it.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley about these issues. She highlighted the disparities in the way that different groups of people are treated in our criminal justice system. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for tabling new clause 29. I hope that the Government will consider accepting it although, of course, if we did not abolish jury trial we would not need it.
We are told that the reason for clauses 1 and 3, which restrict access to jury trials in many cases, is to do with the backlog. That is where the Government start their position—the backlog—and I want to concentrate on that aspect. Please bear with me: I will blind the Committee with a few facts and figures because I think that they will make logical sense of why people such as me say that juries are not the reason for the delays. It is important that we get that sense.
There are currently around 88,000 cases awaiting trial in the Crown courts. The queue for the Crown court is now so long that some trials are being fixed for 2030—the Committee has heard that. We have talked about the old adage that, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” That is happening, and the delay is unacceptable, but the answer is honestly not to get rid of one of the fundamental systems that we have had in our country for centuries.
The reason for the delay is not juries but the court structure and how things happen there. One judge sitting in one courtroom for one day is known as a sitting day. The Old Bailey has 18 courts. It therefore has capacity for 18 sitting days per day, 90 sitting days per week and 4,500 sitting days in a 50-week year. For the last 15 years, restrictions have been placed on the number of sitting days in Crown court centres around the country. Resident judges, who are the principal judges at each court centre, have been told that funding will be given only for a limited number of sitting days. Restrictions of between 9% and 25% have been imposed. That is what the previous Government did.
There is always a queue for the Crown court; that is inevitable, as cases cannot be tried immediately. However—and here is the story—up until the start of 2019, that queue was managed without any undue delay. The backlog had come down from around 56,000 cases in 2014 to 33,000 cases by the start of 2019. All those cases were tried by a jury, and within a reasonable time: within six months if the defendant was in custody, and between eight and 12 months if they were on bail. Given that cases were being tried within a reasonable time in 2019, the suggestion that jury trials somehow take longer or are more complicated has no basis.
The length of the cases backlog rose from 33,000 at the start of 2019 to 71,000 by summer 2024, and rose by another 10% to around 80,000 last year. That increase is a direct consequence of the restrictions placed on sitting days. The problem was exacerbated by the closure of some courts. For example, Blackfriars Crown court in central London, which was a custom-made, modern Crown court building with eight courtrooms and the capacity to host 2,000 sitting days in a 50-week year, was closed and sold in 2019. Over the six years since then, 12,000 potential sitting days have been lost.
There are around 4,000 rape cases in the backlog. Trials for rape that have one defendant and one complainant often takes five days—although some trials are quicker and some take longer—so 2,400 of such cases could have been tried in the 12,000 sitting days that were lost following the closure of those eight courtrooms at Blackfriars. The budgetary decision to close one court led to the inability to try what would have been half of all rape cases in the backlog. Similar examples exist all over the country, including where individual courtrooms within a Crown court building sit empty, meaning that the court is open but operating below its potential capacity.
The Crown court estate has a maximum capacity of around 130,000 sitting days. Currently, it is permitted to have 113,000 sitting days, which is partly because the Government have invested some money and allowed an increase to the number of sitting days. The Government have said that that number is a “record high”, but it is high only relative to the low numbers of the previous 15 years. Given the current backlog, I would say that it is incorrect to say that it is high. We need to invest in more sitting days and having more courtrooms open.
Alex McIntyre
I too am pleased that the Government have decided to uncap sitting days, but does my hon. Friend recognise that although the physical capacity might be there, there are capacity issues with all the teams around that? Even if we open the courts and uncap sitting days, it will not bring down the backlog in the short term, because we will still need to find more prosecutors, solicitors, barristers, court clerks and, of course, judges. All those need to be in place, which would take longer than just uncapping the funding.
Yasmin Qureshi
There are enough solicitors, barristers and judges available. Some of my former colleagues, who are now assistant recorders and recorders, were told that they could do x number of jury trials in a year, then the night before they would be due to sit in a particular Crown court, their session would get cancelled. The only issue here is with the number of court clerks, many of whom were dismissed during the years of Conservative Governments. However, those people do exist, and they can be recruited. It is not that difficult to recruit a few extra court clerks, as courts still have the capacity to do so, and it is better to do that than to throw away the whole jury system as we are doing at the moment.
It is important to note that, in any event, this law will not come into place for two or three years, which is enough time to recruit more people if there is a capacity issue—
Yasmin Qureshi
I will, but first let me explain. We have enough time to get those people in, so that we can increase the sitting days and reduce the backlog.
Alex McIntyre
I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s assertion that the workforce is there and ready and raring to go. Even the Bar Council’s own evidence suggests that the number of silks doing publicly funded criminal cases dropped by about a quarter and the number of senior juniors has gone down significantly as well. Silks are the most senior barristers. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. Will it not take time to fill those gaps so that we can have appropriately senior barristers in the courts?
Yasmin Qureshi
No, because let’s face it: in the jury trials we are talking about, people are not getting sentences of more than three years. There is hardly going to be a King’s counsel dealing with those cases—it is not even going to be a leading junior who will deal with those cases. A lot of the barristers will be middle ranking; the KCs will not be dealing with these types of cases. There are enough members of the Bar to fill the capacity issue.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member for Gloucester pointed to what the Bar Council said, but let us be fair and talk about what it said in its completeness. It may well have said that the people currently practising dropped out, but the Minister quite directly asked how it was going to train these people up and get back to that point, and it made the point that the people who have dropped out of practising criminal law have not evaporated into thin air. They are still there; they are just practising in other areas of law, and when the situation is right for them, they can just come back into practising criminal law.
Yasmin Qureshi
That is absolutely correct. Of course, one of the reasons why some people left the criminal Bar is the fact that the legal aid funding was not great, but I assure Members that if they did not have other work to do, they would come back to the Bar. There are enough barristers and solicitors in the legal system for that.
Yasmin Qureshi
In a moment.
The main reason why the Government have cited is the backlog. What I am trying to say is that it is not the juries that cause the backlog. It is quite clearly the case that, with investment in court structures and court personnel, the courts could be fully up and running, and we could probably get rid of the backlog within the next year or two. The right to a jury trial is not worth sacrificing to get rid of court backlogs.
Alex McIntyre
I remember the discussion the shadow Minister spoke about; we discussed MPs swapping political constituencies at the same time. The Institute for Government was very clear that the biggest constraint is the workforce, so is my hon. Friend saying that the Institute for Government has got it wrong?
Yasmin Qureshi
The Institute for Government also said that juries do not take up that much time—they save more time. The point is that, without too much difficulty, we could get the courts up and running and working for extra sitting days. Essentially, if we had more court sitting days, we would not have the backlog; it is not the juries that are causing the backlog.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the hon. Lady recognise that the 2025 Criminal Bar Association study noted that one in five barristers are considering leaving the criminal Bar, not because of the ineffectiveness of jury trials but because they have to work in crumbling buildings, because there is a significant administrative burden associated with passing on information to the CPS and because of the number of ineffective cases that then do not go ahead? Does she agree that if we tackle the inefficiencies in courts, we are more likely to improve our retention of criminal barristers and encourage some of them to come back into the profession because the system will work better?
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree. The state of some of the courts in this country is sad. They are completely neglected, which creates a lot of challenges.
Dr Mullan
We are leaning heavily on the points made by the Criminal Bar Association. The Government seem quite rightly to be extremely concerned about the training of future barristers, but the Criminal Bar Association has made the point that that training often takes place in what the Government are describing as less serious cases. That is where the more junior people get the experience they need to work on the more serious cases. If those cases are not available, how do the Government expect barristers to be trained to the level required to take on the more serious cases with a jury trial?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree with the hon. Member.
I want to set out why we have a backlog and what we can do. Everybody has talked about various things that we could do, such as triaging the cases more effectively and more routinely, like Liverpool Crown court and some of the others that have seen a considerable reduction. There are the issues of transporting prisoners on time and internet connections in court. We have discussed a number of things that can lead to a reduction in the backlog.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington and I thank her for tabling new clause 29. The reason why we need it is that, years ago, the importance of jury trials was recognised by the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and the fact that the new clause has been tabled shows that we believe they are important. We really should not be restricting jury trials. It is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington is a passionate advocate for fairness and equality, as she has demonstrated throughout this Committee and in her work more broadly. By tabling new clause 29, she offers an approach to ensuring that we can build confidence in the system once the changes have been implemented. We have to recognise that the system is not creating fairness at the moment. We have significant backlogs, which have more than doubled since 2019. Continuing with the system as we find it is simply not an option. Ensuring that trials go ahead in a timely manner will also improve fairness.
On Second Reading, I spoke about my experience as a victim of an either-way offence. The defendant chose a jury trial. The choice to experience a jury was not mine. I did not choose to be cross-examined by the defendant. I did not choose for the case to be postponed twice, and colleagues working in the system, who had to arrange for witnesses and courts to be available not just once but three times, did not choose those postponements either. We heard the testimony from Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett about the process and the impact that delays are having on all parts of the system. She said:
“Our focus has to be on victims and on keeping people safer from harm. That is absolutely where our officers are, but the caseload and the work that is generated by delays in the system do affect our officers.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 68, Q137.]
We have an opportunity to tackle the backlog and to put trust back into the system. I spoke to the CPS in the east midlands just a few weeks ago, and it said that it is currently listing cases for 2028. We cannot just rely on increasing sitting days to solve the backlog. If it were that simple, we would not have an increasing backlog today. We cannot just rely on improving technology. We have to work through a whole package of changes, and that was echoed in Sir Brian Leveson’s report.
I have heard, not only in the Chamber but in this Committee, that jury trials are a cornerstone of the legal system, but we have to be honest with ourselves. That cornerstone is at risk if changes are not made. We need to ensure that changes to the system, including to jury trials, create confidence in that very system. The evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington identified that we need to address the perception of fairness from those of any ethnic background or those who are white British and live in lower-income households. It needs addressing now, even without the changes—we have to reflect on that. The current system has to be addressed, and I would welcome a response from the Minister on how we can work through the detail of the review mechanism suggested by my hon. Friend.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I want to discuss two aspects. First, I welcome the consideration of new clause 29. I absolutely believe it is correct for the Government to review and look into inequalities in the criminal justice system. I pay testament to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington and other MPs, including the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this morning’s debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, alongside Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment; and as the parent of a wheelchair user.
Through the APPG’s work, we have heard directly from stakeholders and service users about the unacceptable delays that wheelchair users face in accessing suitable equipment, often with reduced health outcomes as a result. Too often we also hear that service users are confined to using completely inappropriate wheelchairs as that is, frankly, their only option. The issues I will discuss today in patients accessing disability equipment are also all too evident to me as chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment. I pay tribute to the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz for their dedication in their advocacy for wheelchair users across the UK and for their support in preparing for today’s debate. I am grateful to have secured the debate and, as Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have lived and breathed the issues that so many wheelchair users face in accessing wheelchair provision.
The wheelchair quality framework, published in April 2025, outlines that wheelchairs provide
“a significant gateway to independence, wellbeing and quality of life for thousands of adults and children. They play a substantial role in facilitating social inclusion and improving life chances through work, education and activities that many people who do not need wheelchairs take for granted.”
While I welcome the framework for introducing some minimum standards and expectations, in my experience—and I will come to that later—it is the case that the user deals with the contractor, not the integrated care board. The ICB appears to have little or no idea, quite often, what the actual experience for users is when dealing with the contractor.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I know this is a subject on which he has much knowledge, experience and passion. ShopMobility, a group of volunteers who provide mobility aids at the shopping centre to get people out and about in the town centre, have recently reported to me that many of their customers are coming to them waiting for wheelchair provision from the contractor, sometimes for more than six months. I have also had young people with cerebral palsy and other conditions unable to get basic repairs to their existing equipment. Does he agree with me that these are simply unacceptable levels of services for what is vital equipment, not optional extras? Is that not exactly why, as he says, we need an independent review body to scrutinise the poor performance of the contractors and commissioners?
Daniel Francis
Absolutely; I completely agree. I will refer later to the position that we now know of, how ombudsman complaints have risen exponentially in recent years, and to the experience of many people, including that of my own daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, in the kind of delays that my hon. Friend has outlined.
In the 2024-25 financial year, there were 630,000 wheelchair users registered in England, with 70,600 of them under 18 according to NHS data. However, that figure does not include those who have purchased their wheelchairs privately, or those unable to obtain the right equipment through the NHS. In 2018-19, the Wheelchair Alliance estimated there were a total of 780,000 users. That was an estimate due to lack of robust evidence to back those assumptions. There is no set location on NHS health records to identify whether someone is a wheelchair user. With many users purchasing their wheelchairs privately, or being provided a wheelchair through a charity, NHS data does not provide an accurate picture and we remain in the dark about the true number of wheelchair users in England. Unfortunately across the country we are seeing countless examples of wheelchair users being systematically failed by their service providers, and I am sure we will continue to hear horror stories throughout this debate. Wheelchair users face long waiting times, poor fitting and unsuitable equipment, and complex and fragmented access pathways, with reports of a postcode lottery in accessing wheelchair provision.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Alongside the postcode lottery my hon. Friend outlines, the impact on young people accessing education has huge implications. Not being able to view that data also impacts our understanding of why children might not be attending school. Does he agree that that is why data is so important for under-18s?
Daniel Francis
My hon. Friend is completely right. Last year I helped launch a report commissioned by Whizz Kidz about children who are wheelchair users accessing education, which highlights the issues my hon. Friend has brought to our attention.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has received a significant increase in complaints about wheelchair services, from four in 2018 to 76 in 2025, mainly about long delays in receiving equipment and poor communication. I would like to highlight the Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, which I will refer to throughout the debate. The report highlighted three areas of concern: wheelchair services in England do not consistently work for service users; NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subjected to more rigorous and mandated regulation; and the true scale of demand is not known.
Despite that report being published three and a half years ago, the findings are still relevant. Wheelchair users’ experiences have, if anything, deteriorated further. The report concluded that wheelchair users may be exploited due to a lack of clear regulation, independent review body or information about who to approach regarding repairs, complaints or suggestions for service improvements.
I am grateful to the Chamber engagement team for its support in preparing for today’s debate and for sharing the experiences of the 653 people who contributed to its survey on disability equipment. One respondent said:
“My husband has a basic wheelchair that is the wrong size and broken. It causes pain and pressure sores. He can’t self-propel more than 50 metres in it, making any kind of independence impossible. He is exhausted and in severe pain all the time.”
Another said:
“I had to put off starting university for a year because I couldn’t access a wheelchair in time. I spent a year at home unable to go out and see friends or access education or to even just go to the shop on my own.”
Wheelchair users already face everyday accessibility issues, from transport to housing and work. Having an unsuitable wheelchair adds not just an extra complication but often a debilitating and painful experience, and needs to be resolved. The current system is not working. Wheelchair providers need to work in cohesion rather than compete for contracts and undercut other providers.
National leadership and accountability of the service is necessary to ensure that service providers are held to account. Funding reform is needed to give wheelchair users the right piece of equipment, rather than the cheapest. The better, more appropriate yet expensive piece of equipment can often be the cheapest later down the line, with savings in health care and users better able to contribute economically. I will refer to that later in my personal experience.
Better and more conclusive data is needed. We are still not sure exactly how many adult and child wheelchair users there are in this country. We cannot, therefore, accurately access the current need or where gaps lie. To improve services, we need wheelchair users to be involved from the start in co-production, service design and commissioning. To get the service right and address the individual needs of wheelchair users, we need to hear directly from them. Ultimately, a national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is required to ensure that the service provided is of a good standard. As a result, wheelchair users will receive better quality care and outcomes.
I have five asks from recommendations to put to the Minister. First, it is clear that national leadership and accountability are needed. Service providers need to be held to account, as we have heard and will surely hear more during the debate. There are far too many examples of the service failing wheelchair users, leading to poor health outcomes. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, highlighted that NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subject to more rigorous and mandated regulation. Addressing the current inconsistent and fragmented service will improve outcomes for users, as forms of provision are held to account effectively.
The report suggests that mandatory regulation of wheelchair services could, for instance, be the responsibility of the Care Quality Commission, to address the gaps in accountability, guarantee a minimum standard of quality and, therefore, reduce the current postcode lottery in support. That could also cover private sector providers and additional regulations for private retailers, to give wheelchair users greater confidence and more oversight of the services they receive. Across the country, 45% of wheelchair services are not run directly by NHS trusts and are often commissioned to private companies. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Department has considered appointing a national lead or regulator to oversee the provision of wheelchair services to hold providers to account and ensure that wheelchair users in England are no longer at the mercy of a postcode lottery determining the quality of the service that they receive.
The second issue is budget. Increasing baseline funding in line with current needs and inflation would not only be beneficial for wheelchair users but would likely result in future long-term savings for the NHS. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 23 December report, “The Value of a Wheelchair”, showed that a £22 million per year increase in equipment spending to the average level among ICBs that currently report average levels of per patient spending would represent an estimated 14% increase in the current total annual NHS spending on wheelchair services. That would make a meaningful difference to the total equipment budgets in half of ICBs—and a big difference to wheelchair users. The research shows that this could reap £60 million—along with £315 million in wider societal and economic benefits—in NHS savings.
Budget should also be flexible and innovative, including in individual personalised wheelchair budgets, where users have found gaps in the funding, including not covering additional costs such as shipping or repair and maintenance, resulting in a need for users to self-fund for elements of care. The 2023 report outlines that some users felt the availability of support and funding was inflexible and not always optimally allocated. Whizz Kidz’ research has found that 22% of wheelchair users were offered a wheelchair budget as an option. Many more individuals had to fundraise and source charity support to allow them to get the right wheelchair. Reports from Frontier Economics show that, on average, the NHS spends £125 per wheelchair user per year, covering all types of equipment, staff, service, insurance and maintenance. Establishing an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision would help show where the gaps lie in the current funding and provide more efficient budget management, and where this can be improved. Could the Minister therefore outline whether steps have been taken to review current funding and whether consideration has been made of the benefits of introducing baseline funding in line with other complex and individual needs of wheelchair users?
The third recommendation was about data and transparency. To further improve wheelchair services, data collection needs to be vastly improved. As I have touched on, we do not know the number of wheelchair users in the country and while there is the national wheelchair data collection quarterly publication, it is essential that the available data also includes outsourced providers to ensure that they have a full picture of service provision across the UK. An independent national review body with oversight of all wheelchair services, including the NHS as well as private providers, would help to provide a greater understanding of the current provision, along with more accurate data to help identify gaps—whether in funding or in a postcode lottery of service users having different experiences based on where they live.
Wheelchair users and patients should also have a role. Their feedback and suggestions would illustrate the reality of the current provision and the impact that it is having on their lives. Currently, there are limited avenues for users to provide feedback on the quality of service received, resulting in reduced mechanisms for providers of care and ICBs to identify gaps in the service provided. The Wheelchair Alliance has found communication issues across multiple aspects of wheelchair provision, with users not being provided with an explanation for delays and a lack of communication between providers of care, resulting in users undergoing multiple unnecessary assessments. Giving users the opportunity to report those experiences to one body with national oversight would allow for greater improvements sector wide. Without an accurate national dataset and consistent reporting, unmet need and poor performance are not being addressed and continue to remain prevalent. Will the Minister therefore commit to improving the current collection of data on wheelchair users and their experience in accessing wheelchair provision and services?
The fourth ask regards procurement and value. Currently, many wheelchair users find that they are not given the most suitable wheelchair and are instead given the most cost-effective option. For example, in evidence provided to the APPG for wheelchair users by Charlie Fairhurst—and I declare an interest in that he is my daughter’s consultant at the Evelina—in his role as a consultant for 20 years and as the national lead for children’s neuroscience for the past eight, he outlined that in his experience, poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores and increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector. Hip dislocation rates—which is a big issue for people, particularly children, with cerebral palsy—are increasing in both adult and child wheelchair users due to the wrong equipment being provided. My own daughter had to have her hip broken as a result and may need to have that done again because of those posture issues. Charlie described clearly to our APPG the issues for wheelchair users if they do not have the right equipment: they have to continue having the same operations to put their posture right again.
Another issue users encounter is the wheelchair they require not being suitable for their housing. One respondent to the survey said that the
“wheelchair I was offered weighed nearly 20kg and stopped me from moving around my very small home. Due to the size and weight of the chair, I spent almost four months not leaving the house.”
The NHS would experience cost savings as a result of improved provision, including providing patients with suitable wheelchairs from the beginning. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on those issues.
The fifth recommendation relates to children. Currently, children aged three to five often miss out on receiving an appropriate wheelchair. The strict eligibility and issuing criteria that the NHS uses mean that young children are often deemed ineligible, despite their need not necessarily being any less than that of an adult or young person.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the issue of children getting access to wheelchairs, does he agree that sometimes the provision itself is fine, but parents subsequently establish that the wheelchair is not suitable and there can be difficulties in getting the best and most appropriate wheelchair for the child as they develop and age?
Daniel Francis
I absolutely agree. The hon. Member will hear my own personal horror story on that very matter in a moment. It is a big issue. Children grow, and the delays often mean that when the wheelchair finally arrives, the child is a very different size from when they were measured for it.
Instead of a wheelchair, younger children are offered a standard buggy, which often does not meet their clinical or social needs. It also impacts their social integration at a crucial age and limits their independence and participation at home, in school and at playtime. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister considered extending NHS wheelchair provision to children aged three to five so that they can get the right equipment.
The situation does not necessarily get any better for older children. In 2024, the national wheelchair data collection outlined that 80.9% of children under 18 received their wheelchair within the 18-week timescale, meaning that nearly one in five children are waiting over 18 weeks to receive their wheelchair. That figure unfortunately increases for children with more complex needs. In 2023-24, 29% of children assessed as having a specialist need waited over 18 weeks, and the figures for October to December 2025 showed that 1,563 children waited more than 18 weeks after a referral to NHS wheelchair services. A further 1,685 children were assessed with no equipment provided. That is despite the NHS England model service specification requiring services to have developed improvement plans by 2019 to ensure that all children who require a wheelchair receive one within 18 weeks.
My family and I have direct experience of that with our contractor in the London borough of Bexley. Back in October 2021, when my daughter—who, as I said, has quadriplegic cerebral palsy—was eight years old, it was agreed that she required a new wheelchair. The appointment to measure her for it was held three months later in January 2022, and the wheelchair arrived six months later in July 2022—nine months after the referral. Despite recommendations on the postural support that she required given that she has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a standard wheelchair had been ordered, which then had to be repaired or have adjustments made to it on five occasions in the next four months. Despite those adaptations, it was still not fit for purpose.
After my wife and I got the ICB involved—how many parents out there know what the ICB is and how to get it involved?—a new fit-for-purpose wheelchair was ordered in January 2023. It arrived in April 2023, but no one advised us that it had arrived. I really believe our contractor rations appointments to manage its workload. When we chased the position in June 2023, we were advised that the wheelchair had been in stock for two months. An appointment was made in July 2023. Twenty-one months after the initial referral, my daughter received a wheelchair that was fit for her needs. That meant that the contractor had missed its 18-week deadline twice in an 18-month period in one patient’s case.
Importantly, as I have said, children grow and delays like that cause more work, given that the child will clearly be taller than they were when the referral was made. At such a crucial time in a child’s life, their mobility and independence matter. It is critical that children are given the necessary equipment to engage with their peers and participate in school. Having an independent national review body would help to give children and their families a voice and more ownership over their care and, in doing so, drive down waiting lists and improve patient outcomes. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues, and the Minister’s comments on the points I have made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. A special thanks to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for the opportunity to support him in this debate on a subject of which he has personal knowledge, and for his opening speech. If I recall right, we had a 30-minute debate on the issue some time ago, and now we have a more substantive debate on this important subject, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the need for improvements for many of our constituents. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I will give our perspective to support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and those who will speak after me. It is nice to see the Minister in his place; he is becoming a bit of a regular in Westminster Hall.
Jim Shannon
He is trying to catch up. I look forward to his response and that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). I tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Luke, you’re back again!” It is a real pleasure.
When Members use phrases such as “postcode lottery”, it brings a smile to my face, but not in a humorous way; due to our legislation, my constituents do not have the ability to participate in the postcode lottery and benefit for their street, and yet when it comes to provision for disabled people, we seem to be right in the heart of that painful reality. Whether someone is in Newtownards or Newcastle, their ability to live an independent life should not depend on which trust’s boundaries they live within. I concur with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the current situation is not acceptable, and the changes we seek from the Minister must be transformative.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Recently, I was listening to the radio and heard the story of Phil Eaglesham, a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan and, as a result, needed a wheelchair. He founded a company, Conquering Horizons, which designs all-terrain wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get beyond the basic needs and look towards the real-life needs of those who need wheelchairs? Does he agree that it would be beneficial for the Minister to meet Phil, hear his story, and hear how he is transforming the lives of those who need wheelchairs?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she underlines the point. I was going to give the example of a young fella from Newtownards. He lives in Dundonald, but he is more seen in Newtownards. He has severe, complex mobility needs, but he is the brightest wee boy you ever met in all your life, and he always encourages and lifts me when I meet him. He is a Chelsea supporter, so he needs some help at the minute, because they are not doing too good. I am a Leicester City supporter, and we are not doing too good either, so we have something in common.
There was just no way in the world that the NHS could give him the wheelchair that he needed for his special needs—similarly to the example that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of those who have served in the forces. The only way that wee boy could obtain the wheelchair that he needed was through fundraising. Dessie Coffey in Newtownards has been fantastic. He raises money for all charities, but he did so especially for this wee boy. Over a period of time, we raised about £6,000 to help him with his wheelchair, and today that wee boy has some independence.
I wrote to one of the Manchester United stars—my mind just went blank and I cannot remember who it was, but he no longer plays for them—and he sent me a signed autograph, so I gave it to the wee boy and he sold it for £100. Again, if it was not for individual fundraisers, he just would not have had the money. I very much believe that we need an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, and I support the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in his call for one.
Some might ask why we need another body in an already complex system. The answer is quite simple: because the current system is failing the very people it was built to serve. Northern Ireland has the longest health waiting lists in the United Kingdom. People are waiting years for orthopaedic surgery, and while they wait, their mobility needs change, often without the system keeping pace. Just last year, we saw the collapse of NRS Healthcare, which was the main provider of repairs for our regional service. The Business Services Organisation stepped in to steady the ship, but that moment of crisis exposed the fundamental truth that out wheelchair services are fragile.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?
Jim Shannon
I certainly am. The shadow Minister always speaks with great knowledge on such matters, and I look forward to his speech. Hopefully, the Minister will respond positively to his point. Although waiting lists do not fall under the Minister’s responsibility, the fact is that they are of such length all over the country that mobility is declining, and support is needed more than ever.
One of the greatest merits of having an independent review body would be the death of the data desert. Currently, we do not have a full, transparent picture of the true demand for wheelchairs in the United Kingdom. An independent body would mandate high-quality, comparable data, forcing the Department of Health to confront the true scale of the backlog. The issue of data comes up during almost every debate we have on health. How can we know how to respond if we do not have the data and information? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how we can quantify the demand through data, which clearly needs to be collected.
We also need accountability that has teeth. Currently, when things go wrong, users are often left to navigate a complaints maze with their trust. An independent body would act as an impartial watchdog, ensuring that the wheelchair equality framework is not just a document on a shelf in Belfast or elsewhere, but a standard to which every service user can hold their trust. I gave the example of the wee boy—his name is Reuben Walls—and how fundraising got him what he wanted, but we need a system to help those who cannot fundraise and do not have the finances.
Every day that a child waits for a wheelchair or an adult sits in an ill-fitting seat that causes pressure sores, the cost to the health and social care system grows. Research shows that the right wheelchair can deliver a societal return worth triple its cost. Having an independent body would ensure that we treat wheelchair provision not as an optional extra, but as a vital investment in our economy and health. We need a national body that listens to the Wheelchair Collective, champions the user voice and ensures that the promise of
“the right chair, at the right time, right now”
is kept for every citizen in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister and the Government to ensure and provide that, and I think all of us here today wish to see the same thing.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent speech, which drew on his lived experience.
I contribute to this debate on behalf of the many constituents in Scarborough and Whitby who have been profoundly failed by NHS-contracted wheelchair services. One such constituent is a woman in her early 80s, who became reliant on an electric wheelchair to leave the house following a traumatic road accident. Her family and friends reached out to me after failing to be told when a wheelchair might be provided and not being offered any interim support. At that point, all the necessary adaptations to accommodate the wheelchair had already been made to the outside of her home. AJM Healthcare, which is contracted by NHS wheelchair services, was contacted for an urgent update but was completely unable to provide a specific timeframe for the progress of her application.
Two years ago, AJM Healthcare was investigated by the parliamentary ombudsman following a surge in complaints. As we have heard, those involved people not receiving new wheelchairs or the correct parts, delays to receiving equipment and poor communication. Two years on, sadly, it seems that nothing has changed. Other constituents have also come up against significant delays to wheelchair repairs, leading them to become prisoners in their own homes. One resident requested my help after being housebound for three months while waiting for the supplier simply to send on the correct replacement parts. Another constituent endured three months of delays over a routine maintenance issue, only to discover after countless unanswered calls that the repairs company had gone into liquidation.
It is clear that the current system is not working. Wheelchair providers are failing to meet even the most basic standards, leaving people isolated, housebound and ignored. What is worse, they are getting away with it. Despite repeated complaints and investigations, failing providers are still contracted and continue to offer an appalling service to people such as my constituents. My constituents deserve better. Waiting months for a wheelchair or essential repairs is unacceptable, and it is high time that wheelchair service providers were held to account by an independent national regulator. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan finally to put an end to this catalogue of failure.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for all the work he has done not only to secure this debate, but to champion wheelchair users in his constituency and all of ours. We are lucky to have him on the green Benches.
As we talk about the provision of wheelchairs across the country, I want to share the story of one of my constituents. Dozens of constituents have written to me, but I want to draw this story out because it is a particularly jarring case of how the system is failing people. My constituent Lisa has a severe condition that affects her nerves. She cannot stand, feed herself or use the bathroom unaided, and she has a tracheotomy to help her breathe. In July 2024 she was referred to AJM, the company contracted to the NHS in Staffordshire at that point to provide wheelchairs. It took almost a year, and Lisa’s family contacting me for help, to even get her measured for an appointment by AJM. She was then told that it would be at least another year before she got the wheelchair that she needs. Without that, she can leave her house only for hospital appointments, because the chair that she had was impacting her breathing and putting her life at risk.
AJM did finally provide a better wheelchair in January 2025. It took 18 months—not 18 weeks, but 18 months—and Lisa still did not get the wheelchair she needed. She got a better wheelchair—a less bad wheelchair—but it still did not meet her needs. We are unsure of the timeline for when she will get the wheelchair that she needs to be able to live her life.
Lisa’s is not an isolated case. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who we have just heard from, has also had problems with AJM. We know that it is a national issue and that AJM is failing the people of Staffordshire. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will raise a similar point shortly.
Since 2023, complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about that firm have shot up. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it is very clear from looking at that data that there are systemic, nationwide failings. The ombudsman asked AJM to investigate but, from what we are hearing today and have heard previously in this place, sufficient action has not been taken across the country.
In Staffordshire, the local NHS commissioners issued AJM with a performance notice last August and have now retendered the contract, but until October the contract remains with AJM and, unless massive changes are made, it will continue to fail my constituents and those around the country. AJM has clearly lost the trust of people in our area. The long waits have had a really serious impact not just on the physical health of wheelchair users, but on their mental health and dignity, and on their friends, their families and the community that support them. We can never look at one person in isolation—it takes a family to raise a child and it takes a community for us all to be part of, and these effects have really serious impacts on entire communities as well as on wheelchair users themselves.
This is really not good enough. Staffordshire ICB has finally stood up and made the decision to retender the contract and award it elsewhere. However, my major concern is that this contract was not working, it was clear that it was not working and none of the interventions made it work. That is a real problem. It appears that, if everything works fine, everything works fine—but if things start to go wrong, what is the mechanism to fix them? How do we make sure that things are fixed?
The suggestion that there should be a national body to oversee wheelchair provision is one that would give my constituents and indeed all our constituents confidence that somebody will examine this issue, and that failings will not continue to be brushed under the carpet and ignored. They simply cannot be ignored. Wheelchairs are far too important to far too many people, and I place on the record my absolute support for the proposal.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this very important parliamentary debate.
NHS wheelchair services across England and Wales face serious challenges, affecting hundreds of thousands of disabled people and demanding urgent attention. Access to an NHS wheelchair begins with a referral and assessment by a GP, physiotherapist or social worker. Eligibility is based on clinical need and a wheelchair must be required for at least six months.
Yet problems arise even at that first stage. Many first-time or inexperienced wheelchair users are expected to know exactly what they need, despite having little or no prior experience. They are often presented with a very limited choice of NHS-approved models, frequently without receiving the guidance necessary to make an informed decision.
I want to highlight the experience of Jonathan, a 22-year-old constituent of mine from Bassetlaw. At 18, Jonathan attended his first wheelchair assessment, having never used a wheelchair before. After only a very brief trial, he was asked to choose between two models, with no meaningful discussion about how his needs might evolve. He selected a chair that felt slightly easier to manoeuvre on the day. That single decision had long-term consequences. The wheelchair proved far too heavy for him to manage independently. Everyday tasks such as getting into a car required multiple steps and the help of others. In bad weather, he watched friends and family struggle to lift his wheelchair, an experience that he has described as being both frustrating and deeply uncomfortable. What should have supported his independence instead reinforced reliance on others.
Once that decision about a wheelchair had been made, Jonathan was effectively locked into it. Like many wheelchair users, he could not access a reassessment because his condition, although progressive, did not meet the narrow eligibility criteria for a reassessment. That experience reflects a wider, indeed systemic, problem. Without proper guidance or trial periods, people can make choices that they later regret but may have to live with for years.
Such issues are made worse by long waiting times. Although NHS targets aim for 92% of users to receive a wheelchair within 18 months of referral, the reality is far less favourable. For many people, the delays they experience are far longer—and they are not minor inconveniences: they can lead to secondary health complications, avoidable hospital admissions and barriers to education, employment and participation. Those consequences are entirely preventable. Even once a wheelchair has been delivered, further challenges arise. Jonathan’s wheelchair repeatedly developed faults, from deflating tyres to loose bolts, which at times made it unusable.
Repairs, which should be straightforward, became another obstacle. When engineers did attend to carry out a repair, they sometimes arrived with incorrect parts or relied on Jonathan himself to diagnose the problem. That is an unreasonable expectation to make of any wheelchair user.
When a wheelchair fails, users are not simply inconvenienced; they are immobilised. There is also a significant inconsistency across integrated care boards. Eligibility criteria and equipment provision vary widely, creating a postcode lottery where access depends on location, not need.
There are clear and achievable solutions. First, inexperienced users should receive structured guidance and meaningful trial periods. Secondly, waiting times must be reduced through expanded capacity and better processes. Thirdly, the repair system must be reformed, with stronger accountability and reliability. Finally, eligibility and reassessment criteria must be standardised nationally, so that people with progressive conditions are not left for years with unsuitable equipment.
Sadly, Jonathan’s experience is not unique. Many wheelchair users simply endure these failures quietly, but quiet endurance should not be mistaken for a system that works. With better guidance, timely access, reliable repairs and fair reassessment, we can build a service that supports independence, dignity and opportunity. I believe we have the commitment to do so; what is required now is the will. I end by thanking Jonathan, who helped me with this speech in great detail.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate, and on his excellent work across the board on wheelchair services through the APPG that he leads.
As vice-chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, this debate is incredibly close to my heart. The reason I became part of the APPG is that so many of my constituents were contacting me in desperate need of a new wheelchair or vital wheelchair repairs. One young lad, Noah, had long outgrown his moulded wheelchair to the point that it was becoming unsafe and causing him harm. When he went into hospital for spinal surgery, despite being well enough to be discharged, he could not leave for weeks because he did not have a safe wheelchair to go home with.
Disabled people, including children, with life-limiting conditions have been left waiting for up to two years to receive a new wheelchair. In the young life of a child such as Noah, that is unacceptable. They are left in pain in unsuitable chairs, and some of my constituents are unable to leave the house altogether because their chair has broken down. The long waits have affected my constituents’ physical and mental health, and have placed great strain on their carers.
Preston, the 19-year-old son of my constituent, Kelly Williams, was left with a collapsing wheelchair for six months before vital repairs were made, and it was a further four months before his wheelchair was eventually replaced. Preston lives with a progressive brain disease. He cannot walk or bear weight, and for almost an entire year he was forced to sit in an uncomfortable chair that was not fit for purpose. That is completely unacceptable.
When many of my constituents contacted AJM, the previous provider, there was a complete lack of communication and an all-round failure to consider their needs. I will name one more constituent among the many: an ex-Paralympic medallist, Ian Marsden, runs the risk of being bedridden because, if his broken wheelchair is not fixed, he is stuck. Having raised the issue with the ICB, I was pleased to see that it issued a performance notice against the provider in August last year, but the fact that enforcement action had to be taken raises serious concerns about contract oversight, risk escalation and safeguarding of disabled service users. The service went out to retender; a new provider has been appointed and is due to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) outlined. The contract was awarded on 24 February 2026.
I trust that lessons are learned, but a new contract means that wheelchair users in Stoke-on-Trent South will once again have to get used to a new system and possibly a service in a new location. I strongly encourage the ICB to be diligent in monitoring and reviewing the performance of the new contractor. Playing the blame game with previous providers, as AJM did, will not wash this time.
At this point, I will slightly veer off track to express the significant concerns regarding the changes to car mobility schemes, which were raised by my constituent Ryan. With those changes in mind, it is even more vital that we get wheelchair services right. Given the history and legacy of these issues, I strongly support an independent review body to oversee wheelchair provision and ensure that wheelchair users receive an outstanding service. The time is now, and I ask the Minister to act and fix this situation—it is bad in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, but it is a national issue.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and setting out so clearly and in such detail why this matters.
Access to a wheelchair is essential for many disabled people’s quality of life. It enables independence, supports physical health and allows people to participate in daily activities, work and their community. This debate is about whether the current system is capable of delivering that access consistently, fairly and effectively, or whether there is merit in establishing an independent national review body to help achieve that goal.
As we have heard this morning, when access to a wheelchair is delayed or when equipment is unsuitable the consequences are serious. People can become housebound or bedbound and their health can deteriorate, leading to preventable complications, and in some cases avoidable hospital admissions.
Across England, wheelchair services remain inconsistent. Too often, access depends on where someone lives. Long waiting times are widely reported, with some individuals waiting months and, as we have heard, in some cases over a year for appropriate equipment. For something so fundamental to mobility and dignity, that level of delay is unjustifiable.
The impact extends beyond the individual who needs the wheelchair. Family carers provide vital support to their loved ones. Without a suitable wheelchair, carers may need to help with lifting and movement, increasing the risk of physical injury to themselves. There are also clear effects on mental health and wellbeing, both for carers and for the user of the wheelchair, and those are linked to the loss of independence and reduced privacy resulting from unsuitable equipment.
These issues point to broader structural challenges. The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should be able to live independently and with dignity; yet the current state of wheelchair provision reflects wider pressures within the health and social care system—pressures that contribute to inconsistency, delays and gaps in accountability.
There have been efforts to improve services, including the NHS’s wheelchair quality framework, which sets out important principles and standards. However, it is reasonable to question whether guidance alone is enough to drive meaningful change, particularly in a system facing financial strain and ongoing reorganisation. Frameworks can outline expectations, but they do not ensure delivery.
Wheelchair services are frequently delivered by private contractors on behalf of the NHS. In some cases performance has fallen short, as we have heard this morning, with long waiting times, poor communication and limited flexibility for patients. Where oversight is weak or fragmented it becomes harder to ensure the consistent high-quality provision that people deserve. This is where the question at the heart of today’s debate becomes especially relevant. There is a strong case for a more co-ordinated national approach that ensures clear accountability, consistent standards and better use of data to monitor performance and outcomes.
An independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision could offer solutions. It could provide clear accountability at a national level, helping to ensure that responsibility for performance does not become diffused across multiple organisations. It could support more consistent data collection, addressing current gaps in understanding around demand, waiting times and user experience. It could also strengthen the oversight of providers, including private contractors, ensuring that poor performance is identified and addressed more effectively. Importantly, it could help to ensure that best practice is shared and implemented more uniformly across the country, reducing the postcode lottery that currently affects so many people.
Establishing a new body is not a solution in itself. The body’s effectiveness would depend on its powers, its independence and how it integrates with existing structures. However, given the persistent challenges in wheelchair provision, it is entirely reasonable to assess whether such an approach could deliver improvements that existing mechanisms have struggled to achieve.
The issue is closely connected to wider policy challenges affecting disabled people, which extend beyond the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, the Access for All scheme of the Department for Transport will make railway stations more accessible but I know from my Mid Sussex constituency that the promise of step-free access at Wivelsfield station, made under the last Conservative Government, was not funded and the upgrade has been cut by this Labour Government. The Access to Work scheme of the Department for Work and Pensions can help people with physical and mental disabilities get or stay in work but, as I previously set out to the Minister in this Chamber back in March, the wheelchair that one of my constituents needs has been delayed by years due to the DWP’s bureaucracy and “computer says no” attitude. All such schemes should work together to enable disabled people to live fulfilling lives. By extension, where the schemes are working properly, timely access to support would reduce pressure on other parts of the NHS, as we know is desperately needed. At present, provision is too variable and too slow.
In considering the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body, the key question is not whether change is needed, because it clearly is, but how best to deliver it. A national body could provide the focus, oversight and accountability that are currently lacking. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to look into the arguments voiced in this debate and assess whether an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is the best way to achieve the improvements that are so clearly needed. Those improvements are achievable but require sustained attention at a national level. For the many people whose independence depends on something as fundamental as a wheelchair, that change cannot come soon enough.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He is becoming a regular in these Westminster Hall debates, rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It seems that there is a competition to be the one who makes the most representations.
On a serious note, last month in the debate on disability equipment provision the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke passionately and movingly about his personal experiences. We should treasure so much, in this House, people bringing their experience to try to make things better for their constituents, their family and the nation. The hon. Member deserves a lot of credit and I thank him for securing this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users for its work to ensure that wheelchair users are heard, and I thank the Wheelchair Alliance and others who continue to hold this House, Ministers and the Opposition to account on these issues.
There is little disagreement in the debate about the nature of the problem. The Government themselves acknowledged last month, in the debate on disability equipment provision, that too many wheelchair users wait too long for the equipment they need, with knock-on consequences for their independence, health and ability to participate fully in daily life. That admission is welcome, but recognition alone is not enough. The question before us is how responsibility, accountability and improvement are to be delivered in practice. On that point, the picture is far less clear. Ministers have been explicit that they do not intend to publish a national strategy for wheelchair services. At the same time, the Government are embarking on a major restructure of the NHS in England. Understandably, that combination raises concerns about where national oversight will sit in the future, how consistency will be ensured and who will ultimately be accountable when services fall short.
During last month’s debate on disability equipment, the Minister acknowledged the uncertainty created by the changes, noting that seemingly small gaps in practice or responsibility can have disproportionate impacts on the quality of life of disabled people. That is precisely why clarity matters. As the NHS is reshaped, wheelchair users and their families need to know who is responsible for setting expectations nationally, who is responsible for commissioning locally and who steps in when the system is not working. Without that clarity, there is real risk that the responsibility becomes fragmented and that unacceptable variation goes unchecked. Ministers often rightly point to the role of integrated care boards in commissioning wheelchair services for their local populations, but ICBs are being asked to do a great deal at once—to meet 18-week standards for community services, adopt the best practices set out in the wheelchair quality framework, and now to do so while operating with up to 50% reductions in headcounts and constrained budgets. So it is fair to ask whether those competing pressures risk pushing wheelchair provision further down the list of priorities rather than elevating it to where it should be. Going forward, who will be responsible for overseeing the wheelchair quality framework itself, and how are the Government assessing whether that is genuinely improving outcomes on the ground rather than simply setting aspirations?
There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), previously undertook to look at the reuse and return of disability equipment, which could have real benefits for patients and for public value. Many will be keen to hear what progress has been made on that work and whether it will form part of a more coherent approach in provision.
Finally, I raise the issue of innovation. In my constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, local businesses have shown how responsive, user-focused solutions can make a real, tangible difference. I mentioned Mounts and More as a primary example last time. As the national structure evolves, innovation like that must be supported rather than stifled.
As the Minister responds this morning, wheelchair users and their families are listening carefully. They will want assurances that, amid the structural change, accountability will not be diluted, responsibility will not pass around the system, and there will be clear leadership to ensure faster, fairer access to the equipment that is so fundamental to independent living. I have three questions to the Minister on that basis.
First, as NHS England is abolished through an NHS service modernisation Bill, can the Minister set out clearly which body will hold national responsibility for wheelchair service standards and oversight, and how Ministers will be held accountable when or should services for wheelchair users fail across different parts of the country? Secondly, who will be responsible going forward for overseeing and enforcing the wheelchair quality framework? What assessment have the Government made to date as to whether that is making a difference, and how we can have improvements?
Thirdly—I touched on this in my intervention—many wheelchair users will have had provision from NRS Healthcare. Given the size and scale of the impact of NRS collapsing, there is real concern about servicing their contracts and making sure their wheelchairs are maintained. What have the Government done and what do they have to say on that topic?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this important debate and also on challenging us, born of his lived experience, to make the lives of disabled people better and better lived across our country. We are grateful for his presence in this House and this place, every single day. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to champion this interest more generally in his capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.
In recent months wheelchair services have received considerable attention, both within Parliament and more widely. As has been highlighted, last month I participated in a debate on the provision of disability equipment, brought forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). I have been struck by the compelling testimonies shared during those discussions and the ones today, highlighting the profound impact that timely access to appropriate disability equipment can have on people’s lives.
This is a matter clearly deserving of much more attention. Since the previous debate on this topic, I have written to the national quality board to request that disabled people and the equipment they use are considered as part of the board’s ongoing work to improve quality and reduce inequality across health and care services. I am pleased to update that the board has confirmed it will take this forward.
This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that disabled people can access the services and support they need. Through our reforms to health and social care, we are dedicated to delivering meaningful change that will make that vision a reality. Integrated care boards, as has been highlighted, are responsible for commissioning local wheelchair services. Responsibility for providing disability equipment lies with local authorities or the NHS, depending on the person’s needs.
For adults and children with long-term complex needs, services are typically provided by NHS wheelchair services. There is a range of NHS wheelchair providers across England, as we have heard. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises about NRS. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I will be having discussions about that, and it would be appropriate to write the hon. Member an urgent letter to update him, as I know that he is genuinely concerned about the topic. ICBs are expected to monitor service provision and effectively manage contracts with their commissioned providers.
Although the latest data from NHS England shows a reduction in wheelchair waiting times for adults, I recognise that far too many people of all ages, as we have heard today, experience unacceptable delays for appropriate equipment. The covid pandemic had a significant impact on wheelchair services, from which we are still suffering in terms of supply chain disruption. That has meant that waiting times for both adults and children have fluctuated unnecessarily—well, unacceptably—as services have worked to recover. Those with more complex needs can also experience delays due to the lead-in time for supply of more bespoke equipment.
I understand that there have been complaints about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. Some of these are being dealt with on an individual basis by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, following escalation by individual patients. As part of its oversight of ICBs, NHS England is also gathering intelligence through regional teams to understand fully the issues being raised.
It is important that local commissioners have the discretion to decide how best to meet the needs of their local population, and we are giving systems control and flexibility over how that is done. None the less, the Government are taking action to support local systems in delivering effective wheelchair services. Although there are no plans at the moment to establish a national review body to oversee wheelchair provision, the medium-term planning framework, published in October, requires that from this year all ICBs and community health services should actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The framework also states that in 2026-27, ICBs are required to
“increase community health service capacity”—
including wheelchair services—
“to meet growth in demand, expected to be approximately 3% nationally per year”.
Dr Ahmed
Ultimately, ICBs are responsible for delivering the framework. The Government are held accountable in the manner being seen today, and I have no doubt that in the new structures that we propose there will be further accountability, because in many ways the middleman will be removed and we will have more direct oversight as to what is going on with wheelchair services and other services up and down the country.
I take the hon. Member’s point on data as well. I am the Minister responsible for data, health innovation and innovation in general, and I think this moment of restructuring, whether in relation to wheelchair services or other parts of the system, is a moment for us to really get into the 21st century with our capabilities for monitoring data for operational and capacity planning. I am very happy to share with him some of my thoughts about that over a cup of tea later, if he is interested.
The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting time targets in 2026-27. Those targets will guide systems to reduce the longest waits. In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations, and NHSE and the Department of Health and Social Care are developing plans to achieve that.
NHS England has developed policy, guidance and legislation to support ICBs to reduce delays and unacceptable regional variation in the quality and provision of wheelchair services. In April 2025 NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, in collaboration with the wheelchair advisory group, which I understand includes the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz, both of which were recognised by hon. Members in the debate today.
That framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experiences. The framework sets out quality standards relevant to all suppliers and aligns with the Care Quality Commission assessment framework that applies to providers, local authorities and integrated care systems. Those quality standards should be used to develop local service specifications and to benchmark current commissioning and provision.
Other measures taken by NHS England include the establishment of a national dataset on wheelchair waiting times to increase transparency and to enable targeted action if improvement is required, and the introduction of the legal right to a personal wheelchair budget in 2019. Personal wheelchair budgets provide a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated with other aspects of care.
Dr Gardner
I acknowledge the personal wheelchair budget, but constituents have raised with me that it does not fit the cost of wheelchairs nowadays. It does not quite match, so they sometimes have to use their own funds to get the wheelchair they need, which is not good enough.
Dr Ahmed
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is partly a reflection of the underfunding of aspects of the NHS over the past decade and a half. As she well knows, our party supports the NHS, and we have funded it with £26 billion of additional funding. That will clearly take time to filter through to the services that require the most.
The Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people through our wider reforms to health and social care. The recently published neighbourhood health framework aims to improve health and care outcomes, and reduce inequalities through more convenient, personalised and joined-up care. It includes a focus on improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with long-term conditions, so that they feel more in control of their care.
In July 2025, the Government announced that we will develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. We are making more than £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26, to support the sector and make the improvements that we all crave. We have also established the better care fund, a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better, joined-up holistic care.
This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment such as wheelchairs. We also continue to invest in support for home adaptations to enable independent living, with £723 million confirmed for the disabled facilities grant this year. The disabled facilities grant budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years, representing an 11% increase that exceeds inflation. The independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Louise Casey, is building consensus on the medium and long-term reforms required to create a social care system that is fit for the future, with the phase 1 report due this year.
I recognise the profound impact that delays in wheelchair provision are having on the quality of life of hon. Members’ constituents, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for highlighting that today. He had a number of asks of me, to which I hope I have responded. I am cognisant of the work he has done and the personal attention he gives to these matters, and I offer him a meeting with Department officials in my office to go through them in greater detail. My officials will be in touch to arrange that.
I hope that the work, reforms and modernisation I have set out address the questions he has raised. I assure hon. Members that we take this issue extremely seriously, and remain committed to improving the lives of disabled people up and down our country.
Daniel Francis
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It was a great honour, though deeply disturbing, to hear of people’s lived experience as wheelchair users. To be brief, we heard good examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of mobility providers, and from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) of the growing needs of users. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) about access to school. I urge all hon. Members to look at the Whizz Kidz report on that issue.
There was an interesting comment from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on all-terrain wheelchairs, which is something we looked at in a recent event across the road. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is always here for these debates. It is good to hear about the position in Northern Ireland and, in particular, about veterans’ use of wheelchairs, which also featured at that event.
We heard about AJM Healthcare from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I accept that it is the largest provider in the market—it was the provider I was referring to in my comments—but clearly there have been issues with delays across the country. I will come back to those, and to individual ICBs’ awareness of what was going on.
I was really sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about the suitability and parts issues experienced by her constituent. I know those issues at first hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about discharge delays. I would say that they are sad but, quite frankly, they are just disgraceful. I welcome the pressure to improve standards from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who also rightly brought up the point about NRS. I have met with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care in recent months on that and the overall framework for where the responsibility lies.
To my good friend the Minister, I will say that I will continue this pressure, as will other hon. Members. I accept that what happened during covid was very difficult. I was attending wheelchair appointments during that period and it was difficult—of course, delays were caused—but we have ended up in a position where there are far more ombudsman complaints now than before covid. I will not prejudge matters, but I think the ombudsman may have something to say about this later this year. Lots of wheelchair users have ended up having to go to the ombudsman because it is a complex system. That goes back to the framework and what I said earlier. How many people out there know what their ICB is and how to go to their ICB?
The wheelchair contract where I live is about to be tendered across three London boroughs: Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich. At the moment, those three boroughs have individual providers. It looks like they will have one provider going forward. When the consultation meetings were held around the new framework and the new contract, the provider, AJM Healthcare, was asked to advertise them. Did it tell any of the users? No, it did not, because if it had, they would have come to the meetings and told their horror stories.
I found out by accident because I am the Member of Parliament, and guess what? I was the only person who attended the meeting because none of the users had been informed that it was happening. That is my concern about ICBs monitoring those contracts and being able to say what is happening. It appeared to me in that meeting that, from my experience as a parent and from talking to other parents, I knew more about the problems in the system than the people commissioning the contract within my ICB. That is why we need continued monitoring and some kind of framework.
I absolutely welcome the Minister’s comments. There has been movement, but I will continue the pressure, along with other Members, in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.
Sex Trafficking: Scotland
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of sex trafficking in Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am proud to support a Labour Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. However, I am always going to push for more action to be taken to end the commercial sexual exploitation that takes place every day on our streets and online.
I have raised the need for the Government and police to shut down websites that are advertising prostitution before. Why? Because there has long existed extensive evidence that online mega brothels are facilitating industrial-scale sex trafficking and sexual exploitation across the UK. Websites advertising prostitution, more accurately referred to as pimping websites, are commercial platforms dedicated solely or partly to advertising individuals for prostitution. In 2017, an inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation exposed the crucial role they play in the business model of sex trafficking to meet men’s demands for prostitution.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I wonder if my hon. Friend shares my frustration that the Scottish Government voted down Ash Regan’s unbuyable Bill, which would have outlawed paying for sex and decriminalised victims of sexual exploitation in Scotland, despite the Scottish Government saying that they supported the Bill’s principle.
Tracy Gilbert
I pay tribute to Ash Regan for her work and for bringing forward the unbuyable Bill. Women are not to be bought and paid for, and buying sex is not consent. The Scottish Government’s reasons for voting down the Bill were poor, and in their debate in the Scottish Parliament in February, the Minister said they had
“instructed officials to start work immediately on the establishment of a commission so that options are available for the responsible minister in the next Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 3 February 2026; c. 55.]
I urge that that work be undertaken as soon as the election has taken place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. This is never an easy subject to talk about, but she always illustrates things well. We have to talk about these important issues and find a way forward. Does she agree that the shocking reports into sex trafficking would break even the hardest of hearts, including mine and many of ours? Does she agree that we must give local authorities throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the ability and, importantly, the resources to break these rings and prosecute the perpetrators, while supporting the victims, whose futures unfortunately look incredibly bleak?
Tracy Gilbert
I wholly agree. In my Edinburgh North and Leith constituency, our local councils want to tackle some of these issues, which is very hard to do without funds. They also want to support and provide services for women who are trying to exit prostitution. I wholeheartedly agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Since the 2017 inquiry, past and present members of the APPG, along with organisations such as UK Feminista, have consistently and repeatedly called for these platforms to be closed down. Yet, time and again over the years, the response from the Government, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been the same: pimping websites, which they have referred to as “adult service websites”, are legal and we should continue to allow them to operate.
The Government and police have even engaged in public partnerships with these massive prostitution businesses. Freedom of information requests conducted as part of research by Kat Banyard at the University of Durham revealed that Vivastreet has been delivering training sessions to police officers. The same pimping website enjoyed what they billed as “quarterly catch-ups” with Home Office officials. The FOIs show that the Home Office gave pimping website regulators regular access to Government officials and privileged opportunities to input into policy.
To give an idea of the closeness of the relationship, after Vivastreet gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in 2023 as part of the Committee’s inquiry into human trafficking, a Home Office official reached out to it by email to say,
“the Committee did not give you an easy time – which hopefully didn’t come as too much of a surprise to you, but nonetheless it’s never a nice feeling – so I do hope that you were ok afterwards.”
I strongly support the Home Affairs Committee findings that collaboration between the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and pimping websites was
“inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites”.
Since the inquiry, I am pleased that that collaboration with Government seems to have stopped. I am firmly of the view that Government and the police should not be collaborating with pimping websites. We should be banning those websites and using the full force of the law against them—that is the only way to keep women and girls safe.
Scotland’s law on human trafficking is different from the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I will explain how pimping websites including Vivastreet and AdultWork constitute human trafficking operations under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act (Scotland) 2015.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while websites advertising prostitution such as Vivastreet and AdultWork constitute human trafficking operations in and of themselves in Scotland, the National Crime Agency should also be investigating these sites for facilitating organised crime in England and Wales? These websites allow single individuals to pay for multiple prostitution adverts—a practice that a KC told the Home Affairs Committee is evidence of controlling prostitution for gain, which is a criminal offence.
Tracy Gilbert
I wholeheartedly agree. A recent report found that commercial sexual exploitation is so linked with organised crime that it could not be further underground. All of that is linked to violence against women and girls, and our Government are working hard to challenge and solve that over the coming years.
We should be in no doubt as to the gravity of the implications: pimping websites are the largest human trafficking operation in modern UK history. Police Scotland should launch an immediate criminal investigation into the individuals running pimping websites in Scotland for human trafficking—an offence that carries a maximum life sentence. Under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, an exploiter must fulfil three key criteria for their activities to constitute human trafficking. First, they have to “take a relevant action”. Secondly, they have to take that action
“with a view to another person being exploited.”
Thirdly, they must intend
“to exploit the other person”
or
“know or ought to know the person is likely to be exploited.”
The individuals operating and profiting from pimping websites tick every box. I will consider each criterion in turn.
First, taking a “relevant action.” The relevant actions in the Act include
“the transportation or transfer of another person”
or “the arrangement or facilitation” of it. Pimping websites openly and explicitly facilitate the transportation or transfer of individuals for prostitution. The operators of these platforms publish prostitution adverts in a standardised format, which includes specifying whether the individual being advertised will do outcalls. Vivastreet helpfully clarifies on its website in a blog targeted at individuals being prostituted that
“An outcall is where you go to the client’s location”.
In a separate blog aimed at sex buyers, it says:
“If it’s an outcall, they will also have to factor in travel and finding the meeting space.”
Vivastreet also advise those advertising on its website:
“Don’t forget to set your incall and outcall - as well as overnight fees.”
AdultWork, meanwhile, provides a function on its website explicitly facilitating what it calls “escort tours”. Sex buyers were advised to use that page to locate members offering escort services “on tour”:
“Specify your preferences and location below to see who will be visiting your area.”
Prostitution adverts published by Vivastreet and AdultWork specify whether the individual advertiser will travel to the sex buyer. Crucially, website visitors are also able to filter adverts according to whether those individuals will provide outcalls—that is, travel for prostitution—using a sorting function designed and provided by the website. That is crystal-clear facilitation of
“transportation or transfer of another person”
for prostitution. Facilitating the transportation of individuals for prostitution is built into the architecture of AdultWork and Vivastreet.
The second element of the human trafficking offence in Scotland is that the relevant action is taken
“with a view to another person being exploited”.
The crucial issue is of course what constitutes exploitation. Under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act, exploitation includes exercising
“control, direction or influence over prostitution by the person in a way which shows that the other person is aiding, abetting or compelling the prostitution.”
Pimping websites openly and explicitly aid prostitution. In 2023, a representative of Vivastreet told the Home Affairs Committee that most of its profits came from sex-trade adverts. The standardised prostitute adverts that pimping websites publish contain a long list of sex acts, with the advertiser having to indicate which acts the person advertising will perform. The adverts also feature sexualised or sexually explicit images of the person advertised, prices and a contact phone number. AdultWork and Vivastreet have not even attempted to hide the fact that they aid prostitution, presumably because—at least until now—they have assumed that they do not need to.
As far back as 2017, a judge sentencing a sex-trafficking gang that advertised victims on Vivastreet observed:
“No one, including those who make a profit from Vivastreet, could have been left in any doubt prostitution services were being offered.”
The adverts on pimping websites are not incidental to the prostitution that takes place. After sex buyers view the ads, they call the phone numbers contained in them and make arrangements for the women to travel. The adverts are indispensable to the resulting prostitution, and they are how buyers and advertisers connect and communicate.
I turn finally to the third criterion: for an activity to constitute human trafficking in Scotland, the pimping website must intend
“to exploit the other person”.
That is, they must intend to aid prostitution or know, or ought to know, that the person is likely to be exploited
“during or after the relevant action”.
As is abundantly clear from the activities that I have described, Vivastreet and AdultWork are not unwitting or accidental hosts of hundreds of thousands of prostitute adverts every day. Their knowledge and intent to aid prostitution are immediately obvious to anyone who visits their sites. Every prostitution advert is displayed in an identical format, because the website operators designed it that way, complete with a predetermined list of sex acts. The operators have intentionally designed the website to enable visitors to filter prostitution adverts according to whether the advertised individuals will do outcalls—that is, travel for the purpose of prostitution.
AdultWork, for example, provides a function that enables sex buyers to contact advertisers directly through the website’s internal messaging function. The website states:
“AdultWork.com has booking forms for escort meetings that use the prices you’ve set”.
Again, that is crystal-clear intent to aid prostitution. Pimping websites operating in Scotland constitute human trafficking operations in and of themselves. That is even before we have considered the industrial-scale trafficking by third parties advertising their victims on those platforms. It is a national scandal that the individuals operating AdultWork and Vivastreet have been allowed to operate for years with total impunity, and yet they have also been presented by Government and the National Crime Agency as partners in tackling sex trafficking.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Does my hon. Friend share my alarm at the findings of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into human trafficking in 2023, which found that the partnership working between the National Crime Agency, the Home Office and websites advertising prostitution was
“inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites—and the flagrant facilitation of trafficking enabled by, for instance, single individuals being allowed to advertise multiple women for prostitution.”
This is abhorrent, and I want to know what my hon. Friend thinks.
Tracy Gilbert
I agree. While the reports have been very interesting, I fail to understand why that collaboration was ever allowed to take place. It would seem from all the evidence that collaborating with those pimping websites has not saved one woman from domestic abuse or the violence they have faced. So I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s point.
As the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh North and Leith—a constituency in which AdultWork and Vivastreet aid prostitution—I have a duty to speak out. Today alone, there are 123 women being advertised for prostitution in Edinburgh on Vivastreet, and 132 women on AdultWork. Across Scotland, the total numbers are 776 and 816—that is in a single day.
I have reported this crime today to the chief constable of Police Scotland. As I have outlined here and detailed in writing, there is substantial evidence in the public domain that individuals operating pimping websites are perpetrating human trafficking in Scotland on an unprecedented scale, and that that has been the case since the introduction of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. I am also aware that the charitable organisation UK Feminista has contacted Police Scotland on this matter. I believe that the seriousness and scale of these activities warrants an immediate criminal investigation.
Finally, my ask to Ministers in Westminster is this: shut down pimping websites now. They are directly perpetrating human trafficking in Scotland and across the UK and are facilitating industrial-scale sex trafficking. If the law as it stands allows them to operate in England and Wales, we should change it. These websites are crime scenes. Shut them down now, hold their operators accountable and, most importantly, let their victims finally access justice.
Government Assistant Whip (Gregor Poynton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for securing this debate. The depth of her knowledge and the passion with which she spoke was obvious to all of us and has been obvious since the first day that she arrived in this place. I know that she will continue to advocate and campaign on these really important issues. I am deeply grateful to everyone who continues to advocate and campaign for action to tackle sexual exploitation, for better support for victims and survivors to recover, and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.
Before I respond to some specific points, it is worth outlining some key facts about this area. First, sexual exploitation can take different forms, which often overlap. For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped within sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. The daily abuse they suffer is truly horrific, and that people are profiting from this exploitation is sickening. Any individual who wants to leave prostitution or has been sexually exploited must be given opportunities to find routes out and recover.
To tackle a problem, we must first understand its prevalence. The nature of prostitution makes it difficult to accurately estimate the numbers in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales. In 2019, the Home Office published research by the University of Bristol, which found that it is not possible to produce a single estimate for the numbers of people engaged in prostitution in England and Wales. However, it assessed a number of existing estimates made over the preceding 25 years, which ranged from 35,882 to 104,964 people in prostitution—a truly terrible number.
We know that potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation make up a large proportion of referrals to the national referral mechanism—the framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery to appropriate support. The most recent statistics show that in 2025 across the UK, sexual exploitation accounted for 3,607, or 15% of all referrals. Of those who were sexually exploited, the majority—80%—were female. In Scotland in 2025, there were 144 referrals to the national referral mechanism where sexual exploitation was reported as at least one exploitation type, compared with 135 in 2024.
Of course, prostitution and human trafficking offences are complex and multifaceted crimes often linked to other offending, and people are often victims of multiple abuses. The legislation regarding prostitution and human trafficking is largely devolved in Scotland. That is why the UK Government work closely with counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as with law enforcement partners across the UK. The UK Government are aware that, in March, the Scottish Government established an independent commission to explore how to safely and effectively criminalise the purchase of sex. We will follow the progress of that commission closely as we undertake our own review of prostitution laws in Wales in England—a commitment in our violence against women and girls strategy that remains firm and steadfast.
We must go further to prevent sexual exploitation by supporting law enforcement to identify and prosecute offenders and disrupt sexual exploitation facilitated by online platforms. To address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and covered my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, under the previous Government, officials met organisations that provide adult service websites. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, under this Government, officials and Ministers have not met with those online service providers.
My hon. Friend covered adult service websites in great depth. As Members are aware, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response must reflect that. We must also acknowledge that individuals selling sex have increasingly turned to technology to try to manage their safety, as the University of Bristol found in its research on prostitution in England and Wales. It is important that we try to understand the unintended consequences for the safety of those in prostitution of removing an option that helps them to manage their safety. However, online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for the content on their websites, including platforms taking proactive steps to prevent their sites from being used by criminals.
We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences including sexual exploitation and human trafficking. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services. As of 17 March 2025, online platforms need to take safety measures to protect users from illegal content, such as those set out in Ofcom’s code of practice, or face significant penalties. Ofcom has already started to investigate adult sexual websites for matters such as non-compliance with the Online Safety Act’s risk assessment duties or not adopting highly effective age assurance measures. In addition, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom specifically on the issue of adult services websites to help ensure that the right measures are being put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.
Furthermore, in 2025 the Home Office provided £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for prostitution in England and Wales to pilot a national intelligence hub using information from adult services websites. During the pilot phase, the hub identified serial and serious offenders previously unknown or partially known to the police, leading to four arrests, safeguarding actions and other risk mitigations.
The UK Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of online trafficking for sexual exploitation through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific offenders. The UK Government will continue to keep policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation under review. We want to ensure that online companies fulfil their duties to eradicate exploitation from their sites, and we will take further action to achieve that if necessary.
I turn to the broader picture of disrupting trafficking for sexual exploitation, which was covered in my hon. Friend’s speech. Tackling the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is important because it is a truly horrific crime. We are determined to safeguard victims and bring the ruthless perpetrators of this crime to justice. Although policing is devolved in Scotland, this means we must ensure that police across the UK are relentlessly pursuing those perpetrators who pose the greatest risk to women and girls, and other vulnerable people, and that we are using all the tools at our disposal to protect victims and get dangerous perpetrators off the streets.
We have been working closely with law enforcement to ensure that they have the necessary tools and training to tackle exploitation. For example, the Home Office-funded modern slavery and organised immigration crime programme, delivered by the National Police Chiefs’ Council leads, has developed a new framework for investigating modern slavery, including a suite of products to guide forces in identifying and tackling sexual exploitation. This provides a nationally consistent investigative framework that will help to sustain progress and support forces in delivering a strong, evidence-based response to modern slavery. It will further equip officers with practical tools for navigating modern slavery crimes and fill critical gaps in frontline knowledge to drive performance and support greater accountability.
We know that human trafficking often crosses borders and takes many forms, including sexual exploitation. That is why we are also working closely with international partners to disrupt those networks. We have agreed bilateral frameworks with key partner countries to strengthen co-operation, prevent exploitation and support victims. For example, the Home Office has agreed joint action plans with Romania and Vietnam, committing us to closer law enforcement co-operation, the disruption of trafficking networks and improved support for victims, including some returning to their own countries.
I will wrap up by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for securing the debate and all those who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). For too long, women and vulnerable people have been trapped within sexual exploitation under the guise of prostitution. This Government will not stand for it. These are complex and challenging issues, but we must be unrelenting in seeking to address them. The most vulnerable in our society demand this of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Wind Farms: Protected Peatland
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am glad to be introducing this incredibly important debate, which I have personally secured. It is particularly timely because, right now, Brontë country—a delicate mosaic of precious peatland and an historic heritage landscape, straddling Haworth and Stanbury in the Worth valley in my constituency across to Hebden Bridge in the Calder valley—is under threat like never before. There is a proposal for a huge wind farm development, and I will spend my time in this debate stating exactly why we should oppose the disastrous scheme.
Before I begin, I put on record my thanks to the various local campaign groups that have been working tirelessly to oppose the Calderdale wind farm and get the proposals scrapped. There are too many to mention, but I particularly thank Lydia and Nick MacKinnon and Jenny Shepherd.
Today happens to be the 110-year anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Brontë, author of several books and poems, most notably Jane Eyre. The works of Charlotte and her sisters, Emily and Anne, are world famous, as is the iconic moorland that inspired many of their stories. If approved, the Calderdale wind farm would see up to 34 200-metre-high wind turbines erected across Brontë country.
This moorland is not just a site of famous literary heritage; it is also the site of irreplaceable protected peatland. I have been firmly against these proposals ever since they were first brought forward in 2023, and I have been inundated with correspondence from my constituents and local campaign groups who agree that this scheme will be hugely detrimental to our heritage landscape and our precious protected peatland.
Before today’s debate, I wrote to the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Shipley (Anna Dixon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), inviting them to speak in today’s debate, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to strongly oppose these development proposals. Like me, I am sure that they have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about these proposals, so it is disappointing not to see all of them here today.
Before I outline in more detail my concerns about the Calderdale wind farm proposals, I want to be very clear that I am not against wind farm developments or renewable energy schemes. However, I am absolutely against wind farms being developed where they will have a huge impact on the environment, ecology, wildlife, heritage, flooding risk and the very carbon sequestration ability of our peat, which will be hugely negatively impacted.
It is with peat—and its carbon storage ability being severely impacted—that I will start. The peat in the south Pennine moors is generally considered to be around 9,000 years old; the mosaic of blanket bogs began forming thousands of years ago from sphagnum moss. For centuries, the peat has been absorbing the carbon emissions from the mills of our industrial past, our transport and our everyday modern life.
Peat is delicate and grows just a millimetre a year if we are lucky, and only when subject to a limited range of favourable environmental and climate conditions. The proposals of the Calderdale wind farm could cover approximately 2,300 hectares of protected peatland above Hebden Bridge and Haworth, and the impacts of disturbing such precious peatland will have disastrous consequences on the local area and beyond.
Peatland is a natural store of carbon, capturing and storing 26 times as much carbon as our forests in the UK. Almost all our UK peatlands have at least some blanket bog, with UK uplands containing around 15% of the blanket bog in the world. The Walshaw moor alone is made up of approximately 16,000 acres of it. Healthy peatlands will absorb and store carbon, and build carbon into the peat. However, if peatlands are damaged, which is unavoidable with huge infrastructure projects such as wind farms, it can release carbon back into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of infrastructure required for the Calderdale wind farm is huge. It includes the foundations associated with each turbine, the complex road network that needs to be built across the peat so that each turbine can be fixed in place, the expansive base areas next to each turbine, the vast cabling routes that need to be buried underneath the peat, the man-made drainage cut-outs that need to be installed, the sub-stations, the weather monitoring and the fencing—I could go on. All of that will have a deeply damaging impact on our protected peatland.
As with any major infrastructure project, access routes will need to be created to the turbine sites, and those service roads will cut across blanket bog and seriously impact landscape hydrology. Long-established estate roads in uplands tend to avoid peatland because of the maintenance challenges, but wind farm roads simply cannot do that; they are constrained by the requirements of the turbine layout and the moorland topography. That is not just a short-term problem; once constructed, a wind farm road becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Peat subsidence will continue indefinitely because of the need for our roads to be kept constantly dry and because of compression from the weight of roadway material. A very real example of that is the A5, which was built across peatland on the Welsh border nearly 300 years ago but continues to subside today.
I know that the developers and those supporting the Calderdale wind farm proposals like to say that the benefits of producing renewable energy outweigh the carbon loss caused by the development, but the justifications they have offered have been extremely poor. In fact, Professor Richard Lindsay, a world-leading expert on peatland ecosystems, who I spoke to just last week, has described those making this argument as
“clinging to the carbon calculator as a drowning man clings to a life belt”.
By that, he means that the system of measuring carbon storage impact is not fit for purpose. It simply does not consider all the influencing factors, or indeed the cumulative impact of onshore wind farm developments, the vast majority of which are north of the border in Scotland and in Wales.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and rightly highlighting the concerns about these developments. In my constituency in the Borders, we have wind farms, battery storage proposals and solar farms. As my hon. Friend said, developers talk at length about the supposed environmental benefits, but that is no more than greenwashing, because the wider negative impact these developments will have on the local environment where these developments are taking place is far greater than any benefit that might come from the developments proceeding.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point: the developers have failed to ascertain that the positives of the project outweigh its negative impacts, including the impact on the ability of the peatland to sequester and store carbon. That is before even considering all the negative impacts on highways, the impacts of the infrastructure that has to be developed and the impact on local communities. The renewable energy scheme will be incredibly detrimental; the peatland will hold more carbon. That is why I am firmly opposed to the development.
Another huge risk with the development of wind farms on sites of protected peatland such as Walshaw moor is the impact on both water quality and flooding. Peatland is 95% to 98% water—it has the same percentage of solid content as a jellyfish. Disturbing it through the construction of wind turbines on Walshaw moor will increase flood risk and damage water quality in Calder Valley towns and surrounding communities. Studies have shown that putting any kind of hard infrastructure on peatland has a direct negative impact on how peat interacts with itself; it prevents peat bogs from absorbing rainwater, which ultimately increases flood risk downstream and increases the likelihood of serious slipping incidents.
Peatland also plays a key role in regulating water quality. Around 72% of the UK’s reservoirs are fed from peat, and over 28 million people consume water from peaty catchments. Degradation and disturbance of peat is often accompanied by increases in dissolved and particulate organic carbon loads, which increases the treatment costs required to make water drinkable.
Another additional environmental risk associated with the Calderdale wind farm proposal is the risk to local wildlife. Walshaw moor is home to a number of protected bird species, including the lapwing, golden plover, merlin, short-eared owl and the curlew—today, in fact, is World Curlew Day. Those species use Walshaw moor as breeding grounds, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have warned that disturbing such populations with the installation of wind turbines will significantly damage overall numbers of the birds.
I return to the specifics of the Calderdale wind farm’s impact on local heritage and culture. Rebecca Yorke and her team at the Brontë Society, who look after the Brontë parsonage in Haworth in my constituency, do incredible work. Understandably, our much-loved Brontë Society is firmly against the proposed wind farm development across our heritage landscape, which encompasses Top Withens, believed to be the inspiration for the setting of “Wuthering Heights”. That landscape, I might add, has a live application worked up right now for UNESCO world heritage status, along with listed status for Top Withens. All that has widespread community support.
Our literary landscape offering to the world, which inspired the Brontës’ imaginations in their renowned novels and poetry, is under threat. If this wind farm proposal goes ahead, that landscape will be blighted forever. We know that because, even after the decommissioning stage of the wind farm, none of the infrastructure is proposed to be removed, apart from the turbines themselves. The road infrastructure, all that cabling and those deep foundations that sit beneath the turbines are not proposed to be removed once the wind farm comes to the end of its life, blighting our heritage landscape and the peat forever.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with nuclear power stations, for example, decommissioning costs are built into the cost-benefit analysis of any such projects, and yet that is not the case when wind farms are built in environmentally sensitive areas?
Robbie Moore
The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ.
Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me.
I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech.
The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development?
The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now.
For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
As the Member for Shipley and a neighbouring constituent, I want to make those listening aware that we have attended the debate and will shortly be giving our views on the proposals, as the hon. Member invited us to do, for which I thank him.
Robbie Moore
Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. May I confirm that the hon. Member has informed the Members he mentioned that he was going to mention them in this debate?
Robbie Moore
Sir Alec, not only did I inform them today to remind them to come to this debate, I wrote to them last week inviting them to come to this debate and I wrote to them maybe six months ago asking them to join me. They are well aware that this debate is taking place. It is very disappointing that they did not turn up to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents.
Renewable energy could be an essential part of our future, but not like this—not here, and not at the cost of everything the Brontë country represents. This scheme must be stopped.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the invitation to join him in Westminster Hall today. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about the fantastic peatlands and moors in my wonderful constituency.
As we have heard, peatlands occupy about 12% of the UK land area, including many areas in my constituency: Baildon moor, Harden moor and parts of Rombalds moor. We have some wonderful upland landscapes. I recently walked up to Top Withens, which has been mentioned and has a precious place as the inspiration for “Wuthering Heights”. I took some American guests, who were very inspired by the cultural heritage in the Bradford district, which we all so enjoyed celebrating in 2025 when Bradford hosted the city of culture. I was excited to hear the first curlew of spring, one of the pleasures of walking in the upland moors, and see the lapwings doing their amazingly flamboyant mating dance.
As the hon. Member has rightly highlighted, peatlands are crucial in our fight against climate change. They store a whopping 3.2 billion tonnes of CO2. They also reduce flood risk—something that particularly impacted constituents during the Boxing day floods over a decade ago—and support biodiversity. The Labour Government are acting to stop the decline in nature depletion.
However, as we have heard, both here in the UK and around the world our peatlands have been degraded and, according to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, are now estimated to be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Stopping their degradation must be a really big priority. That is why I welcome steps that Bradford council has taken to scale up peatland restoration on the district’s moorlands. In 2023, some £200,000 of additional funding was committed to rewet areas of the moorland. If someone goes to walk there, they can see blocked drainage ditches and things called leaky dams, which slow the flow of water.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. She is absolutely right that the Government are committed to helping with the rewilding and restoration of our peatland. It is probably worth noting that that is done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was a DEFRA Minister for years, so it is somewhat of a surprise that he is a new convert to the environment.
Anna Dixon
These investments are critical, and it is pleasing that the Labour Government are taking nature actions so seriously. In addition to those I mentioned, there is also the planting of sphagnum moss—which is quite tricky to pronounce.
Bradford has recently published its climate action plan 2025-28, which outlines its comprehensive approach to working towards a low-carbon future. I also welcome steps taken by the Government at a national level with the environmental improvement plan, which was published just a few months ago. It says that we will—
“Restore approximately 280,000ha of peatland in England by 2050”.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of
“windfarm development on protected peatland”
but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.
Anna Dixon
I am just coming to that part of my speech. I will first turn to wind farms, and then I will come specifically to my views on the Calderdale wind farm, which lies largely outside of my constituency.
As well as restoring peatlands, which I have dwelled on in the first part of my speech, another key aspect of the comprehensive climate plan is ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. I am proud that this Government have pledged to make the UK a clean energy superpower, and as part of that have set up Great British Energy to produce cheaper and cleaner power for our country.
I will briefly make a political point, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also did, to remind him that his party ended a lot of the support for solar power and blocked the expansion of onshore wind. In its dying days, it seemed to attempt to create some sort of green wedge between the parties, and broke what had been a long-held consensus among at least the main political parties that we needed to tackle climate change. What I have heard from him—I will give my position shortly—is that he is opposed to the development, but he has pledged his support for clean energy, which seems at odds with some Members of his party.
I shall now discuss Calderdale wind farm. I would not say it was the most overwhelming issue in my postbag, but 22 constituents have contacted me about the proposals. They rightly believe that protected peatland should be protected. I agree with them, and I think that the Labour Government, and I hope the Minister, will give the same assurance. I believe that is why there has been a recent announcement that large infrastructure must also be covered by a biodiversity net gain. I hope the Minister will explain how that would apply to this particular project, if it were to go ahead, and how we would ensure that the peat was protected.
I urge the Government to listen to the arguments made in this debate. There could clearly be major negative impacts on our precious peatlands in this area of Yorkshire, and I ask that the Government look carefully and reconsider the proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley that it would be beneficial to extend the statutory period of consultation to allow all significant organisations that wish to feed into it to have their say. I support—as I know the Labour Government do—the protection of our special peatlands. We must tackle climate crisis, but at a local level we must balance our need to drive forward clean energy with the detrimental potential impact.
John Lamont
I am grateful. As I said earlier in my short comments, in my constituency I am inundated with wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and data centres. I now formally object to each of them. Previously, in my life as an MSP and an MP, I did not formally object to such applications, but the situation has gone so far and the environment has been damaged so much that I now do so. Will the hon. Lady formally object, on the council’s website, to Calderdale wind farm?
Anna Dixon
I am a fairly new MP, having come in in 2024. I think that the general advice given to MPs, as to the hon. Member previously, is not to get involved in formal objections. That is the approach that I have generally taken, but I have expressed views on other planning decisions in the local area, including on some of the battery energy storage facilities. I have had significant concerns about their proximity to residential areas, not least in relation to the facility in Cullingworth. I have expressed those concerns to the Minister. The proposed location of Calderdale wind farm obviously lies outside of my constituency. I have given an impression of the number of constituents who have contacted me. I will encourage them to lodge their formal consultation responses. I reserve my right to consider whether I make a formal objection to that specific proposal.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on, but hon. Members can see who is standing to request to speak. I ask them to be mindful that I will call the first Front-Bench contribution at 3.28 pm.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this vital debate. I share many of his concerns. Mid-Wales faces a wave of wind farm proposals on a scale that would transform the landscapes that make mid-Wales so incredibly special. From Gilwern hill near Llandrindod Wells to Nant Mithil in the Radnor forest, Banc y Celyn, Garreg Fawr and Aberedw, our communities are being asked to absorb huge energy developments across some of the most unspoilt and environmentally sensitive parts of Wales.
Clearly we need clean energy. We need renewable energy and there are huge possibilities across Wales. Sir Alec, I know that you are a keen engineer and that you will be interested in the opportunities to develop tidal energy in Wales, and the bountiful opportunities to develop our offshore wind capabilities. However, destroying one of our most important natural climate defences in the process of developing onshore wind is reckless and irresponsible. That is the contradiction at the heart of wind farm development on peatland. Peatlands are not wasteland. They are among our most valuable ecosystems. They store carbon, regulate water and support biodiversity. When damaged they can release the very emissions that we are supposed to be preventing.
We already have evidence that such warnings are being brushed aside in Wales. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—the Welsh countryside charity —uncovered internal Welsh Government documents that show there is serious ecological damage at existing wind farm sites. Peat soils are being excavated, dumped and
“left to oxidise, erode and degrade.”
Officials warned that further damage would occur, and that further public money would be needed to put that right. Despite all that, the Welsh Labour Government still approve projects such as the Garn Fach development in the north of Powys, on vital peatland that serves the catchment area of the River Severn—an area that we know is already vulnerable to causing severe flooding downstream. That decision sent a deeply worrying message: that promises to protect peatland can be overridden when it becomes politically convenient to do so.
When we look at the sites now proposed, the stakes become even clearer. Take Gilwern hill. Its open moorland is crossed by ancient drovers’ routes. It is home to species such as the curlew, the skylark and the red kite, and it is rich in archaeology. One of the specialities of Powys is the reintroduction and preservation of endangered birds. We have bronze age cairns and iron age hillforts that face not only turbines but access tracks, as previously mentioned, up to 100 metres wide cutting across the landscape.
At Nant Mithil, we have more than 4,500 acres of the Radnor forest, where the Welsh dragon supposedly lives—[Laughter.] Take my word for it; it is too dangerous. That landscape includes a special area of conservation linked to the River Wye, sites of special scientific interest and a network of public rights of way used by walkers and local communities. Around 80% of the site lies outside the Welsh Government’s own designated areas for wind development and yet they are threatening to allow Bute Energy to destroy it.
It is at sites such as Banc y Celyn and Garreg Fawr that the myth of low ecological value land is most clearly exposed. Those are not degraded or expendable landscapes; they are some of the last remaining habitats of their kind. Those ecosystems survive precisely because they have not been intensively managed. They have avoided the fertilisers and pesticides that have wiped out similar habitats across much of Europe. They support fragile and irreplaceable biodiversity, from waxcaps to breeding populations of curlew, skylark, cuckoo and raptor, as well as protected mammals such as the brown hare.
That is the crucial point: those habitats cannot simply be recreated somewhere else. They exist because of centuries of minimal human intervention. Once they are developed, they are lost for ever. In a global context, Wales is one of the last refuges for these species. We are told these are exceptional cases but when one exception follows another, people are right to ask whether any peatland or any sensitive habitat in Wales is truly safe. That matters not just for wildlife and landscapes but for the credibility of Welsh climate policy. How can Ministers talk about biodiversity targets while approving developments that official briefings warn could negate years of restoration work?
Wales needs a renewables strategy that commands public consent, protects irreplaceable habitats and recognises that not every hectare of land is suitable for industrial development. Otherwise, the Welsh Government risk undermining the very environmental goals they claim to champion. As I am sure we all agree, once those landscapes are gone, they are not coming back.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish hon. Members a happy World Curlew Day--tan, small, slender, often up to its knees in muck and at the risk of extinction in West Yorkshire--I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing the debate.
This debate, much like my constituency, comes under the shadow of plans to build England’s largest wind farm on protected peatland on Walshaw moor. I believe it is a uniquely beautiful landscape, resplendent with curlews, lapwings and other moorland birds. As a fell runner, I love that environment, which is one of the most special places on earth. From Top Withens to the open moorland, I am proud to have one of the most beautiful constituencies.
Its beauty and the curlews, however, are not in and of themselves a reason to block the development of any renewable energy project. I subscribe to the view that we face a climate and nature emergency. Climate change is real and man-made. Our energy use makes it vital to ramp up the building of green energy infrastructure for the future as quickly as possible. For that reason, there would have to be clear and compelling evidence for me to question the development of a wind farm or any other renewable energy project.
We must follow the science, however. The more we learn about peat and its role in absorbing carbon, the clearer it is that building on peat will do more harm than good. Peatland covers just 3% of the world’s land surface but stores around 30% of its soil carbon. Disturbing peat by building wind farms risks releasing that stored carbon, likely cancelling the carbon saved through wind farms, particularly bearing in mind that these wind turbines have just a 25-year lifespan.
Research by the University of Aberdeen, referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, suggests that developers should avoid building wind farms on peatland altogether. In response, the Scottish Government have tightened their policy in that area. In England, those considerations are not applied consistently, but that needs to be reformed and brought into line.
As I have said in multiple representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the fundamental problem that we face is, unsurprisingly, one of joined-up Government. Too frequently under the last Government, the environment and climate change were treated as an afterthought and not as central to the business of Government.
Just last month, the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the lack of joined-up thinking between DEFRA and DESNZ, and the proposal that we are discussing is a clear example. On the one hand, DEFRA has committed £85 million to restoring and managing peatlands, preserving our environment and offsetting our carbon emissions. On the other hand, if DESNZ signs off projects like this, it will damage those peatlands without the same scrutiny as other developments, so we have to take a step back and assess whether it is truly the right course of action. Our Government’s revised national planning policy framework argues against developments that involve peat extraction, but that is contradicted if we continue to develop these projects. Although it is not okay for someone to dig up a bit of peat to put on their garden, it is okay to displace 8,000 cubic metres of peat to build a wind turbine.
Calderdale energy park represents a risk to a moor where in places the peat is more than 2 metres deep, according to Natural England’s peat map. As a fell runner, I can attest to that, because I have fallen into some of those peat bogs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, put it starkly:
“Our peatlands are this country’s Amazon Rainforest and in desperate need of restoration and protection”.
She is absolutely right—more so, in fact, because peatland stores 30 times more carbon per hectare than the rainforest. Let us be clear: we would join in the international opprobrium if the Brazilian Government were to fell trees in the Amazon to install solar panels in the hope of securing carbon credits. We should apply the same seriousness to the protection of one of our most carbon-rich landscapes.
Robbie Moore
I know that on 30 March the hon. Member wrote to the Secretary of State asking for clarity on the guidance associated with the national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure, EN-3, and its relationship with peatlands. I hear him speak about the importance of protecting peat, but I am less certain about what his position is on the Calderdale wind farm. Is he for or against the development of the Calderdale wind farm in his constituency?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I think my position is fairly clear from what I am saying, but my point—this is the very clear thing—is not about a development in Calderdale, but about the principle of trying to tackle climate change and looking at that in the round with regard to developments on peat and whether any developments on peat make sense. I am more interested in the broad principle. I was never going to look for an outcome and find evidence to support it. I followed the evidence where it led me, and it led me to the concerns that I have expressed to Ministers fairly constantly, to the point where I have made clear my view that building on protected peat is counterproductive to our climate change aims.
In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many Members across the House appreciate the need for a green energy revolution and agree that we have to move at speed to respond to the scale of the climate crisis. I recognise the urgency to meet net zero, but we have to get it right. We have to accept that green energy that comes at the cost of our environment is not in fact green, and we must be clear that projects that will dig up peat are wrong, even if that is for homes or wind turbines. I urge Ministers to make clear our position on this and how we are looking at that, so we can come to a position that does not undermine what we are trying to do overall in our climate aims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his clear passion on this matter and for reaching out to all the political parties to try to engage them and bring them together in the way he always does through his politics in this place. I do hope he is successful in that; perhaps we have yet to find out whether that will be the case.
I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very heart of the Northern Irish landscape. From the Sperrins to the Fermanagh lakelands, our peatlands are not just scenic backdrops but our greatest natural asset in the fight for good environmental space and to be good stewards of our land. We are given the task to look after what we have today; we are indeed the custodians for those who come after. What we do will have an impact on our children, grandchildren and generations to come.
Peat removal has taken place over many years. At the turn of the 19th century in Northern Ireland, peat was the heat source for many cottages and houses, but in the last 60 years, there has been a change and a different focus. I adhere to and support what the hon. Member puts forward in relation to wind farm development on protected peatland. In Northern Ireland, we are currently working towards an ambitious goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. We understand that this is a mammoth task, one that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently debated. Regardless of where the target is set, we need renewable energy and a sensible way forward.
There is a balance. We have to restore and hold on to the peatland—that is important. I refer Members to early-day motion 3168 on World Curlew Day tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff); if they look at the wording of it, they will see the importance of retaining that habitat. The peatlands are a breeding location for curlew, lapwing and snipe, critically important for their survival into the future. Wind farms, by their very nature, have the potential to kill many of the birds that fly. That happens to birds of prey, curlew and others when they are high in the sky—I am ever mindful that wind farms are tall.
I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will refer to Glenwherry grouse moor in his constituency; it is a shooting moor, but it is also a peatland moor. I am very keen and interested in shooting; I know the gamekeeper there and the project that has been going on over Glenwherry for years. There were once no grouse there, and a magnificent project, in partnership with the landowner, gamekeeper and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, has ensured that Glenwherry is now a workable and harvestable grouse moor. That has happened because they have retained the peatlands and made the habitat suitable for all the bird life that is there—not just the grouse, but the curlew, lapwing, snipe and others.
We must recognise, however, that 86% of our peatlands are currently degraded. When we build turbines on these sites we risk further damaging our soil carbon pool, which accounts for 53% of all carbon stored in Northern Ireland’s soil. We support what the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is trying to achieve, because we understand the importance of ensuring that these things do not happen. We cannot afford to save the planet by destroying the very ecosystems that naturally sequester its carbon.
Under the Northern Ireland peatland strategy to 2040, we have committed to restoring all semi-natural peatlands to functioning ecosystems, and that needs to be replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the importance of ecosystems in his introduction, and I reiterate that and support it. We must find a balanced path that prioritises degraded industrial peat sites for energy development, rather than un-degraded, healthy blanket bogs, and that integrates restoration funding into wind farm projects. That will ensure that developers do not just build but actively help re-wet and recover the surrounding land.
When we talk about the peatlands, we talk about their importance: they are historically and environmentally important, and we must do our best to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand when it comes to stretching out and taking over what we have responsibility for. Let us ensure that our wind farms are built in the right places, for the right reasons and with the utmost respect for the carbon vaults beneath our feat in the peatlands. We take a stand for those peatlands today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who secured this debate, is probably surprised to have more response from Northern Ireland MPs than from those representing the constituencies surrounding his own, and he may wonder why that is the case. However, this problem is not specific to one area; it extends right across the United Kingdom. This problem will also only increase, exacerbating an issue that the Government have already accepted, that 80% of our peatlands have been either degraded or badly damaged, the impact of which has been outlined by other speakers.
The window of my house’s study looks on to the upper parts of the Antrim plateau, and it is almost like looking at an army of triffids marching across and destroying the peatlands. I have stood on the site of the most recent wind farm to be built close to my home, and the trenches created by the removal of peat would reach above a person’s shoulder, so there had obviously been a huge displacement of material.
I believe this problem will only increase because the Government, in their pursuit of net zero, have now proposed another 27 onshore wind farms across the United Kingdom, and they are giving incentives. Despite our being told that the price of wind power is going down, it actually went up in the last auction. Of course, wind farms are most suited to a certain type of upland, and it is very attractive to put them there. There is good wind, and the land itself is probably not all that valuable to farmers because it has quite a low agricultural value. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for farmers to allow, encourage and accept the locating of multiple wind turbines on such land. This problem has been caused, first, by Government policy, and secondly, by the kind of areas we are talking about and their suitability for these kinds of developments.
We have already heard about the value of peatlands, especially in upland areas. We have heard about the impact on drainage, wildlife, river systems and—this will be more important to others than to me—the release and storage of carbon dioxide. I take a different view from many others on the causes of climate change. It happens, but for multiple reasons, so we cannot identify only one cause.
The irony is that those who believe that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is important are the very people who now encourage activities that release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. As has been pointed out, we cannot have wind farms on peatland areas without causing significant disruption through the digging of holes to put in huge amounts of concrete—the making of which also generates a lot of CO2—the putting in of roads and the disruption to drainage. There is even the fact that the power must be taken through electricity cables that run across landscapes. All those things unavoidably lead to the release of CO2, which is the very thing we are told that net zero policy is essential to prevent.
Robbie Moore
The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Another key challenge in building the turbines is the infrastructure, because a huge amount of aggregate to facilitate the piling of the foundations and road infrastructure must be brought in from elsewhere, which could be a long distance away. That is exactly the challenge we are finding at the Calderdale wind farm, where aggregate will have to be brought from miles away—nowhere near the actual proposal. Does the right hon. Member agree that this demonstrates why it is so ludicrous to have wind farm developments on protected peatland in areas that are not suitable?
Sammy Wilson
These are all issues that should be taken up during the planning process, and I am not sure that happens. When I have objected to wind farm applications in Northern Ireland, the answer has been, “This is a way of producing clean energy.” I do not even accept that argument. It is not clean, in the way in which the landscape has to be disrupted. Most of the steel for wind turbines is produced outside the country, from sources that produce it in less clean ways than we do. Anyone who has taken any interest in the matter will be appalled at the environmental and human degradation caused by extracting the rare earth metals required for these wind turbines.
We are currently spending huge amounts of money on a huge new electricity infrastructure because, instead of bringing power from one station, we are bringing it from stations spread all over the countryside, hence the investment in the infrastructure, which individuals are paying for through their monthly bills. I have heard the defence today that this is the cost of getting clean energy. We have to ask ourselves, “Is it even clean energy?” Is it any more environmentally friendly than some of our other methods? If we look at the carbon intensity of each machine used to produce the energy, an individual turbine is more carbon-intensive than a generator in a power station. All those factors are not taken into consideration.
To the Minister, and to those who support the whole policy of net zero and what must be done to achieve it, I say let us at least be honest with ourselves. Do these projects achieve what we want to achieve? If they do not, whether in our constituencies or somebody else’s, there should not be any hesitation in saying that they prevent us from achieving the goal that we want to achieve.
Maybe the Minister can enlighten us. When applying to build a road, all kinds of environmental assessments, et cetera, have to be done. Since these developments are designed to reduce carbon emissions, a proper carbon calculation should be done when a planning application is made. If that had been done, I suspect that many of these projects would not have been given permission, as their carbon output would have been greater than is acceptable. If we are to stop this, we must pay attention to the carbon output and ensure that planning permissions are predicated on a proper assessment.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate.
Peatlands such as the Avalon marshes and the Somerset levels and moors are globally rare ecosystems. They make up less than 3% of Earth’s surface, yet they hold 30% of the world’s soil carbon. They have been described as the UK’s Amazon rainforest. They constitute 12% of our land area and play a critical role in mitigating climate change, supporting biodiversity and regulating water flow. They also support important habitats of rare fauna and flora, such as sphagnum mosses, roundleaf sundew, cottongrass and invertebrates such as the large marsh grasshopper, micro-plume moths and various damselflies and dragonflies. The peatlands of the Somerset levels and moors host breeding waders such as snipes and curlews, plus bitterns, adders and the recently reintroduced beavers. Somerset’s county emblem is a dragon rampant on a yellow background, so my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) can keep his Welsh dragon, which I understand inhabits the Radnor forest.
Given that the UK faces a nature crisis, with one in six species threatened with extinction from Britain, it is vital that adequate steps are taken to protect and restore such rare habitats. Yet successive Governments have kicked the can down the road and failed to take the necessary action, with the Office for Environmental Protection rebuking the previous Conservative Government for falling far short of the action needed to improve the environment. Part of creating the healthy natural environment that lies at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach requires continued renewable and clean energy investment, such as wind farms. While we strongly believe that renewables are key to the energy production of a low-carbon future, priority habitats such as peatlands must be preserved and protected.
Worryingly, in the UK and around the world, peatlands are a net source of greenhouse emissions due to how they have been managed over the years. Over 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged by past or present management. The Somerset levels consist of marine clay levels along the coast and inland peat-based moors. The peat dries out when peatlands are damaged, and when exposed to the elements, instead of storing and locking in carbon, it is emitted back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Restoring peatlands to health is absolutely vital so that they can continue to sequester carbon effectively. Once restored to a healthy and stable state where they can function naturally, peatlands will start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat, as well as providing an important natural flood defence.
I have long stated my concerns about the management of peatlands, and the development of wind farms on peatland risks further degrading these valuable habitats—negating any reduction in carbon emissions that would be produced by those wind farms. While previous research suggested that emissions could be reduced if strictly managed, more recent findings have found that wind farms on peatlands will not reduce carbon emissions, even with careful management.
Researchers have recommended that future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peat. Environmental scientists from Nottingham Trent University have also warned of the need to better understand the impact of wind farms on peatlands, with evidence showing increased negative impacts on peatland hydrology, biodiversity, carbon storage and ground-level climatic conditions, and further cautioning that the carbon savings generated through wind energy may be negated by the emissions from the peatlands on which they are constructed.
I thank the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its recent inquiry on this exact issue. It highlighted the inconsistencies and weaknesses in a Government policy that, on the one hand, recognises the importance of peatlands, yet on the other refuses to take action to manage the increasing infrastructure demands on them. Current Government guidance states that onshore wind farm sites in England may be proposed on peatland. However, any application should rule out other locations before siting developments on peatland.
I want to be clear that investment in renewable energy is a must. It will make homes healthy and cheap to heat, and it will support green jobs and economic growth. Another consideration is whether the development of wind turbines on peatland undermines the green energy transition, and whether the carbon lost from degraded peat outweighs estimated savings from renewables. There is planning guidance and a carbon calculator to address the issue in Scotland, but why not in England? The Government have also stated that they will publish an equivalent to NatureScot’s guidance on peatland habitat management for England, but we need to know when that will be.
That leads me to a broader concern regarding the Government’s approach to protecting our peatlands. In December, DEFRA published an updated environmental improvement plan, which included a commitment to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050. However, recent analysis indicates that we may be significantly off track to meet those targets, and the Climate Change Committee has called for the UK Government to prioritise ramping up peatland restoration. Currently, the Government plan to spend £85 million by 2030 on peatland restoration. Although that funding is welcome, we must question why we still allow peat extraction to continue.
Hon. and right hon. Members may be aware of my Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, which would finally implement the horticultural peat ban that was first promised by Government in 2022. This Government recently committed to end the sale of peat in England, but they have yet to take concrete steps to achieve that ambition. I urge Ministers to do their bit to ensure that such a ban is included in the forthcoming King’s Speech.
Somerset is one of only two counties in England where peat extraction still takes place, with a few extraction licences still in place until 2042. Despite the immense potential of peatlands as carbon sinks, shockingly, extraction and degraded peatlands contribute to 10% of all carbon emissions in Somerset. Beyond the climate benefits, healthy peatlands store and slow water flows, reducing flood risk and creating a rich mosaic of habitat that helps prevent wildfires. There have been yet more devastating floods this winter in areas such as Mudford, Langport, Thorney and Drayton in my constituency, so it is important that we utilise the unique ability of peatlands as natural flood defences. We know that the construction of wind farms on peatlands disrupts their hydrology, which can lead to peatland drying out and vicious cycles of erosion, potentially aggravating flooding in the settlements below.
Peatland extraction for horticulture poses exactly the same risks. For several years, horticultural businesses have been working towards a peat-free future, with Somerset-based businesses such as Durston Garden Products, based just outside Street, and RocketGro supporting a ban and producing peat-free compost. They took the previous Government at their word when they committed to ban the sale of peat, believing that it was the right thing to do for their businesses and for the environment.
We need a joined-up approach to peatland protection and restoration, which recognises that both extraction and the placement of unsuitable infrastructure on peatland undermine our net zero objectives. We must instead focus on win-win solutions through strategic and spatial planning that can deliver for society and nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. We believe that with carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. Rather than stripping local authorities of local decision making, we would give them a key role to cut emissions in their own area, including more powers and funding.
It is time for the Government to end the uncertainty, to act now and to demonstrate real leadership by implementing a well thought-out policy for peatland protection and restoration.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment.
On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country.
The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document.
In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands.
That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve?
The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected.
In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that
“emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”—
I repeat, “will not”—
“be offset by…the green energy generated.”
That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question.
As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.
Anna Dixon
Will the shadow Minister clarify his own party’s position? Does it remain committed to net zero, and does it acknowledge there will be a lot of nature damage if we do not make the transition swiftly to generating clean and renewable energy by 2030?
Greg Smith
The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging.
The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion.
The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which I know is very important for his constituency, just as it is for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn)—I know that he has done a huge amount of work in engaging Ministers on this topic and I thank him for that. He is probably the person in the room who has the greatest intimate knowledge of the bottom of a peat bog. I also wish everybody a very happy World Curlew Day.
The Government’s ambition of clean power by 2030 is critical for moving all of us off our costly reliance on fossil fuels and for protecting consumer bills. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), rightly said that we need more investment in small, modular reactors. That is true, but we also need to invest in our cheapest form of energy, which is solar; our second cheapest, which is onshore wind; our third cheapest, which is offshore wind; and full scale nuclear and small modular reactors. We need to do all those things for our energy security, to bring bills down and, of course, to tackle climate change.
Recent events in the middle east have reinforced the importance of producing home-grown clean energy. Delivering our clean power mission will help to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis. Onshore wind is a critical component to delivering those goals. Getting more low-cost renewables such as onshore wind on to the system reduces our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, protecting British families from the effects of future price shocks. This Government will continue to support onshore wind. We have removed the damaging de facto ban in England that has been in place for almost a decade and reintroduced the technology into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
Robbie Moore
The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?
Chris McDonald
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that as I continue my remarks I will address many of the points that he made in his speech, including the point about peatland. From the contributions we have heard today, I would say there is strong agreement in this room on the need both to tackle climate change and to care for our special environments in the UK, including peatland. He will hear more on that from me shortly.
Removing the ban on onshore wind was a very early and important decision that the Government made. The onshore wind projects deliver a very low-cost form of energy and improve our energy security. The momentum is on our side. Last year, onshore wind power produced 12% of our total electricity. We recognise, of course, that poorly sited, poorly designed onshore wind farms have impacts on local communities in relation to wildlife, local heritage and residents’ sense of place. That is why our planning system has strong checks and balances to manage those impacts, including through requirements for extensive up-front surveys and statutory assessments on the impacts of the environment and important habitats. Those checks and balances extend, of course, to peatlands.
We know that peatlands are vital for biodiversity, for carbon and for water. Peatlands are sensitive habitats and are important for many species of flora and fauna. Because peat soils are rich in carbon, disturbances will have climate impacts. We therefore recognise that building infrastructure such as onshore wind on peatland can have detrimental impacts, and we appreciate that communities have valid concerns about that. An e-petition, to which the Government responded last year, called for a ban on building onshore wind farms on peatland in England, and we have heard those calls repeated in this debate. That is why we have protections in the planning system requiring careful consideration from developers and decision makers when onshore wind farm developments are proposed on peatlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) also asked a question about the protection of peatlands. Approximately half of England’s deep peat and a quarter of all England’s peat soils are afforded special protection through being classed as irreplaceable habitats, as we heard earlier. That affords additional protection in the planning process. The Government have published specific guidance for onshore wind and peat in the national policy statements, which are used to assess the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure projects.
We heard earlier about EN-3, the national policy statement for renewable energy, which makes clear that, although onshore wind is permitted on peatland, applicants should seek and rule out other locations first. EN-3 guides developers to avoid peatland where possible, particularly areas of deep peat. Where that is not possible, developers are required to mitigate or compensate for peatland impacts. We are now going further to give decision makers and developers more tools to assess and manage the impacts of onshore wind on peatland. We committed in EN-3 to publish additional guidance regarding wind farm construction on peatland in England, something the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) asked about in particular.
I can confirm that we are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government about developing a carbon calculator tool for England similar to the one currently used in Scotland, which could inform policy decisions around developments on peatlands. I hope that my words have clarified the Government’s position and addressed some of the concerns. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley might be disappointed that I have not directly referenced the project in his constituency, but hopefully he realises that, given the role of the Secretary of State, I have constrained my comments to speak more generally.
Robbie Moore
I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Member is right; he mentioned that and I meant to respond to it, but I had forgotten. It is important to note that there is no role for the Government in extending the consultation—that is a matter for the developer, but I am sure that any responsible developer would listen very carefully to the voice of the local community and Members of Parliament, so it is important that he has put that on the record.
Our clean power 2030 mission is our route to lower bills, greater energy security and resilience, economic growth and the revival of regions that have been left behind, including our industrial heartlands. However, we also know that it cannot and must not come at an unacceptable cost to our natural world and our communities, so we are taking a balanced approach. We do not believe that clean energy must come at the expense of our environment. That is why we are investing significantly in protecting and restoring nature, including peatlands, while providing the protections and flexibility we need through the planning system to manage impacts and enable deployment.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate; I thank everyone who participated—and of course I thank you, Sir Alec, in the Chair.
Robbie Moore
The reason for calling this debate is that we are dealing with a real and live challenge, particularly in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The debate has been very worthwhile, but I have major concerns. There was a moratorium in place under the previous Conservative Administration, which has been removed by this Labour Government, enabling these sorts of developments—wind farms on protected peatland—to take place. Yet all the Labour Government can offer is guidance, which simply refers to protected peat being looked at and referenced within any application. That is deeply worrying.
Secondly, the Minister referred to ongoing discussions on the carbon calculator with the Scottish Government. That is too late. An application is before us in West Yorkshire. Any ongoing carbon calculator discussions are too late, because the application is being considered right now.
My third point is that as far as I can see, my neighbouring Members of Parliament have not put forward a position on the Floor of the House on whether they will join me to campaign as strongly as we can against this application. Concerns have been raised, but there is no formal position. It is deeply worrying that some of the Labour Members of Parliament I wrote to—I gave plenty of notice—did not feel it was worth turning up to this debate. It is clear that this Government’s policy in pursuit of net zero makes absolutely net zero sense.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.
Alternative Measures to GDP
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Before I call Dr Roz Savage to move the motion, I remind Members that, unless they have given notice to Dr Savage or the Minister, they are unable to make a speech; I have not had any indication that anybody has given such notice. They are, however, able to make an intervention.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?”
My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own. First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience.
To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone. In a democracy, they must do so accountably, so we need an appropriate way of measuring their success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for a very commendable speech in setting out what we are trying to achieve. She rightly highlights that, while GDP measures the monetary value of goods and services, it fails to capture critical aspects of life, such as environmental sustainability, income distribution and health. However, it is also a well-established measurement. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that we do not see a new measure that allows failures to be hidden by new definitions?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics.
So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her on her speech so far. Does she agree that the focus on GDP growth will continue to damage quality of life in rural areas by overlooking environmental damage, access to education, social inequality and worsening public health, and that, if the Government prioritised measures of those issues as much as they do GDP growth, we would see greater investment in overlooked rural areas such as Yeovil?
Dr Savage
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s perspective that, in rural areas in particular, the aspects of our quality of life that are not measured in financial terms are very much overlooked by GDP. He makes an excellent point that, in fact, using GDP as the pre-eminent metric disproportionately impacts on rural ways of life.
As I was saying, if my assumptions about what Governments are for are correct, how well does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding? My answer to that would be: poorly, partially and, in some important respects—as already mentioned by others—not at all. I want to take each function in turn, looking at how GDP either misses or distorts it, or actively points in the wrong direction. First, on safety, GDP cannot measure whether people feel safe, whether crime is falling or whether justice is accessible. However, it counts the cost of building more prisons and policing more disorder, so a rise in violent crime, followed by the state’s response to it, actually adds to GDP. Secondly, on fairness, GDP is just an average; it tells us nothing about distribution. A country could have record growth, but the majority could be growing poorer while a handful are growing extraordinarily rich. It counts the billionaire’s yacht and the foodbank donation as contributions to national output alike.
Thirdly, public goods are where the distortion is most severe. GDP has no entry for clean rivers, unpolluted air, well-functioning flood defences or thriving natural ecosystems. Instead, it records the cost of remediation when things go wrong, never the value of prevention. In my South Cotswolds constituency, the Thames headwaters and the Cotswolds water meadows absolutely underpin food security, flood resilience and community health, but GDP is blind to all those things. Logging a forest, draining a wetland and concreting a floodplain all register as economic activity and contribute to GDP, while the loss of the natural ecosystems that made those landscapes valuable disappears without a trace.
Fourthly, on stability and risk, GDP counts healthcare spending, but it cannot tell us whether people are getting and feeling healthier. It counts anti-depressants and ambulance call-outs as contributions to output. By the logic of GDP, a pandemic is an economic opportunity. Fifthly, collective choices about the future are possibly where GDP fails most completely. It has no mechanism for accounting for the harm to future generations. By design, it rewards short-term thinking, and it is constitutionally incapable of answering the question, “What kind of a country do we want to be 50 years from now?”
The conclusion is inescapable: GDP was designed to measure the volume of economic activity, no matter what form that activity takes. Using it to assess whether a Government are fulfilling their five core functions is like using a thermometer to tell us whether a patient has recovered. The patient’s temperature may be perfectly normal, but their leg may have fallen off.
I have a couple of quotes worth remembering. Robert F. Kennedy put it with devastating precision in 1968. He said that GDP
“does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
Meanwhile, Simon Kuznets—the economist who actually invented GDP in response to the great depression of the 1930s—had already warned that it should not be used as a measure of national wellbeing, yet we have been ignoring his advice ever since.
Unfortunately, GDP is not just partial; it can be actively misleading, because it creates perverse incentives at the heart of Government. As the Wellbeing Economy Alliance observes, our current system has four interlinked flaws: it is unsustainable, unfair, unstable and creates unhappiness. Critically, neither the brake nor the accelerator works any more. Faster GDP growth will only worsen biodiversity loss and accelerate climate change. In a system where a fabulously wealthy former Prime Minister pays an effective tax rate of just 23%, it will almost certainly also worsen inequality. That is the trap that GDP has built for us. It is a metric that makes it structurally challenging to do the right thing, because doing the right thing does not always show up as growth.
Moves have already been made in Britain in this direction, and we already have the data, but we do not use it. I will give credit where credit is due. When he was Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, Lord Cameron, launched the Office for National Statistics national wellbeing programme, and also quoted Robert Kennedy. Since 2011, the ONS has published a framework tracking national wellbeing across 60 measures and 10 topic areas, across personal wellbeing, health, relationships, environment, governance and more. In February of this year, the ONS launched a new set of seven headline measures to be updated quarterly, explicitly aligned with the UN high-level expert group’s recommendations.
We have the data and what it tells us is striking. Since the pandemic, self-reported health has been in sustained decline. Trust in Government rose briefly after the last general election before falling back to lower than pre-election levels. Those trends are invisible to GDP yet are essential to any honest assessment of how our country is doing. Sadly, those measures, no doubt laboriously collected, sit on the ONS website largely unread and almost entirely ignored by Government. I suggest that it is time to use them.
Elsewhere in the world, countries are moving ahead. They are building better measures, embedding them in law and using them to govern. Last week, I was at the Wellbeing Economy Forum, two days of serious exchange with policymakers, economists and practitioners from across the world. It was tremendously inspiring. Three things were unmistakeable: we have the intellectual case and the technical frameworks but the only thing missing in too many countries, including this one, is the political will.
I will cite three examples of countries showing what is possible. Iceland rebuilt after the economic collapse, not by chasing GDP recovery but asking its people what they wanted. It is now one of the wellbeing economy Governments, alongside Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland and Canada, all of which have introduced wellbeing metrics to guide public policy and budgetary processes. In Wales—not so far away—the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 legally requires every public body to act in the long-term interests of the next seven generations. That was initiated by Jane Davidson, a woman I am proud to call my friend. While I was at the conference last week, I had a long conversation with Sophie Howe who was Wales’s first future generations commissioner, and is now an internationally respected voice. If it can be done in Cardiff, I see no reason why it cannot be done in Westminster.
Thirdly, in Sabah, Malaysia, my good friend Cynthia Ong began the Forever Sabah movement, with a single simple question: where will Sabah be in 50 years if it continues down its current development trajectory? That question should be the founding question of every Government; not how fast are we going, but where are we going and what will we leave behind?
I have requests of the Government that would make a significant difference to my constituents, to every person here in Westminster, to the country and to the generations not yet born. The first is to use the data we already have. I am delighted we have a Minister from the Treasury here. Maybe he could relay the request to ask the Treasury formally to integrate the ONS wellbeing dashboard into spending decisions, alongside GDP, not instead of it.
Secondly, to require natural capital accounting in all major infrastructure and land-use decisions, so that the destruction of a flood plain, a peatland or a water catchment carries a recorded cost on the national balance sheet, not just a planning objection. If we value it, we must measure it. Thirdly, to introduce a parliamentary committee for the future, as called for by a coalition of organisations, including the School of International Futures and the Policy Institute at King’s College London. The committee would consider the long-term wellbeing of those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions. It should be not just a gesture but a committee with real teeth. Wales has shown that that is entirely achievable.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Would the hon. Lady add to her list a request that the Minister consider a formal target to cut inequality in this country? We will never grow our way to a good life for all our citizens while we have a fundamentally unjust society; we will only break the environmental boundaries we are already rapidly burning past.
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for his very insightful intervention. In the doughnut economics model, we are in many ways in “overshoot”, while the basic needs of many in our society are not even being met. That is one of the major failings of GDP: it does not show how the benefits of growth and the wealth of the country are being distributed. I have been very impressed by the work of Kate Pickett, who spoke at the recent Lib Dem spring conference on this very subject. She spoke about her “spirit level” concept and argued that greater equality in a society works better for everybody, including the people at the top.
If we are honest with ourselves, we can now see the cost of ignoring the warnings of Simon Kuznets and Robert Kennedy. We can see that warning embodied in polluted rivers that once ran clean, in communities that feel left behind and in a politics that too often measures success in pound signs rather than human outcomes. We have the evidence, and we have the frameworks; we just need the willingness to change the definition of what we value, because what we measure shapes what we prioritise, what we prioritise shapes our decisions and our decisions shape the country that we will be in five years, 10 years and 50 years from now. Let us take an active choice to measure what matters: the wellbeing of our people, the health of our planet and the future we hand on to future generations. Let this Parliament be the one that finally aligns how we measure success with what success actually means.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this debate and on her speech. I am glad to be here for three reasons. More than most Ministers, I enjoy a chance to discuss statistics, so that is high on the list. The second reason is that I agree with lots of what the hon. Member said about the broad purpose of government and the need to reflect all that in how we govern. The third reason is that everybody likes a quote from Bobby Kennedy, and she has supplied one.
I will start with some of the areas of less agreement and then come to our agreement, so that we can end on a high. A good summary of my view is that there is a very large amount more to life than GDP, but that the lack of GDP growth in recent years has been a very big problem for ordinary working people. That was the big absence in the hon. Member’s speech: she did not wrestle with the fact that the lack of GDP growth over the past 15 years has been a huge problem for the British people that has had real effects on all our constituents, particularly those on the lowest incomes. Much of her speech could have been given in 2010; it did not engage with the real world as we have lived it for 15 years, and the catastrophic consequences of a lack of productivity growth feeding through to a lack of wage growth, feeding through into food bank use and the rest. Those are really important things that her speech did not do justice to.
All of that does not mean that I do not agree with lots of the points she raised, but I see those as being entirely consistent with the Government’s view that economic growth does matter, but not as an end in itself. It matters because it remains one of the most reliable ways to raise living standards and because, for example, wages in Swansea, where I am a representative, did not grow between 2009 and 2023. That is what a failure of Government looks like, and it is a failure of GDP growth, not because of too much focus on GDP growth.
GDP is also important because it is very highly correlated with—I am not saying it is a cause of them—other things that we do care about: health and wellbeing. The correlation between longevity and GDP over time and across countries is very strong indeed. We all, I think, care about longevity because we are hoping to go on for as long as is humanly possible—not in speeches but in life generally.
It is good news that the UK has seen some signs of progress in GDP. It had the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. The hon. Member will have seen recent GDP statistics for the start of this year, which show more significant growth than people expected. But—this is where I am in complete agreement with her—there is much more not just to life but to government and statistics than GDP. We care about secure power, clean water, lower poverty and lower inequality, not just higher GDP. All those things are incredibly important and we should care about all of them; Government’s job is to focus on them.
Let us turn to GDP and some arguments that that the hon. Member made about it. I will explain why I do not quite agree, even though I agree with many of the big-picture arguments that she made. Her argument was that there has been too much focus on GDP recently and that has led to bad outcomes. Has there been too much focus on GDP? If so, it has not had any effect because there have been the lowest levels of GDP growth that we have seen in a very long time. GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament—so there was apparently a huge focus on it but it fell. Growth in GDP per capita over the 10 years prior to that Parliament was incredibly sluggish. Was that because there was too much focus on it? No. That is why people oppose the building of houses: they do not care about younger generations or care enough about GDP; they just care about themselves, in some cases, and that is not acceptable any more.
Why, if we cared just about GDP, would successive Governments, disgracefully including the Liberal Democrats after 2010, have slashed public investment levels? Such public investment boosts GDP in the long run. That would be the target. It is a good thing for our society. It would make our country cleaner and help with clean water and the energy crisis, yet public investment levels were slashed. People were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy politics. That is what happened in that Government.
The hon. Member gave the specific example that building prisons would boost GDP. Is that what actually happened? The last Governments, from 2010 onwards, did not build any prisons. They were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy answers. That is why we have had to come into Government and deal with the prisons crisis that was left to us. What actually happened was the opposite of the argument that the hon. Member made.
It is sometimes argued that GDP and the other things that we care about are in tension. I totally agree. But remember: there is one area where they heavily overlap. GDP, in many ways, measures the effectiveness with which we turn resources into output. That is what we who are environmentalists should care about. We want things to become more productive. Fewer resources going in to produce the same output gets us higher GDP and a better environment. That is a really important point to hold on to. We have had a 17% fall in energy usage in the recent past. Some of that is because we have become more efficient at using that energy. That is absolutely the kind of productivity growth that we need; it helps GDP but it really helps the environment.
Chris Hinchliff
On the point about statistics and what GDP measures, I ask the Minister to take away the issue of imputed rent. A fairly strange part of GDP, it measures hypothetical rent on the value of existing houses, inflates the value of our GDP as a country, and could be part of what we are measuring when we say that we are trying to achieve GDP growth, though it is actually entirely theoretical.
Torsten Bell
A debate has come on to imputed rent; we can tell it is nearly 4.30 pm on a Tuesday. The hon. Member is tempting me—and I will engage with the question. What is the big picture that matters regarding the state of Britain when it comes to housing? I will come to why imputed rent is relevant to that and tells us something important.
Housing in Britain is too expensive—incredibly expensive —but most of the population of Britain do not face market housing costs because they are homeowners who bought a long time ago. The negative effect of those high housing costs is very severe for a subset of the population. If I am honest, I think that is why Liberal Democrats oppose house building left, right and centre: the consequences for younger generations of not having built, over the last 20 years, homes that they can live in, that keep their housing costs down and that let them and their children lead a decent life have been ignored because we did not care enough about—forget GDP—actual people and their families. That is what happened. Imputed rent tells us the effect of that, which is that those people who do not face market housing costs but do live in a property that they own, are receiving a stream of benefits from owning that property. By living in it, they are consuming that; that is all that is telling us. The important lesson from GDP and housing is, “Get on with building some houses because younger generations are getting stuffed over,” not, “We paid too much attention to GDP.” That would be the opposite of what it teaches us.
What is GDP a measure of? It is imperfect for lots of the reasons that have been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but it does represent income flowing into people’s pockets, business revenues, and a tax base that funds our public services. Those things do matter. My hon. Friend is right that they are not the only things that matter—I totally agree with that—but they are real things. They are not abstractions, and we do need to care about them. If people do not care about those things, they do not mind that Britain has seen the lowest levels of business investment in the G7 year after year.
Turning to areas of agreement, I absolutely agree with lots of what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said about the limitations. I also endorse her praise for the approach of the Welsh Labour Government in this area; lots of my friends have spent years developing that work. On its own, GDP does not capture everything that underpins either our economic strategy or what matters in people’s lives; that is absolutely correct. It does not, for example, tell us how growth is distributed or about wealth inequalities, physical and mental health, and environmental sustainability. As the hon. Member set out, those limits have been long recognised, but we need to keep pushing against them. In 2016, the Bean review set out some of the issues that she has raised about the need to consider broader measures of wealth distribution and natural capital. In response, the ONS has put more resources into some of those things. Some progress has been made over the last 10 years—obviously, we were not in government so I am not claiming credit for that.
The Dasgupta review further encouraged us to treat natural capital as an economic asset, as we absolutely should. Those principles have been accepted by the Government and they are being embedded in decision making. Hon. Members will have seen the supplementary guidance to the Green Book that puts in place the appraisal of environmental impacts alongside economic costs.
The truth is that it is easy to say that everyone just myopically focuses on GDP. I have set out that that is not the case because if they did, hopefully we would have seen a better job over the last 15 years. The truth is that across Government we consider a much wider range of economic indicators. Wellbeing is an important one; I have carried out research on wellbeing data and it does have something to bring to the party. But the strongest conclusion from wellbeing data is that people need a decent income and they need to be healthy. The Government do focus on those things because they should. Because we care about wellbeing, we are lifting the two-child limit. Because we care about health, we are investing in the health service to bring down waiting times. Our tax rises, which are opposed by all the Opposition parties, are delivering those things. We care about wellbeing because health is really important.
Even within economic indicators, what is the truth? We look at indicators not just on GDP, but on income, pay, employment, jobs, regional performance, and the environment. I encourage the Government to continue to do that. Ongoing improvements to the national accounts will also help better capture natural capital and the quality of public services, not to mention AI and the things that tend to get reported in the newspapers. Ministers look at all those things when they make policy. When I am looking at pensions policy, I am definitely into the weeds of health data and healthy life expectancy. I promise hon. Members that GDP is not dominating all those decisions.
To conclude, GDP remains central to how we understand the economy. It tells us something important, but partial. Both of those things are important to understand. It is not remotely a measure of everything that matters. It does not aim to do justice to non-market interactions, which is a technocratic phrase for the fact that it does not do justice to some of the most important things in our lives—not least, caring for each other. That is why this Government are so committed to both reversing the dreadful economic performance seen under the previous Government—performances that left wages flatlining—while also assessing success against a far wider range of measures. The goal is a Britain that is not just growing but thriving.
Question put and agreed to.
Hammersmith Bridge
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here for this debate. I also thank everyone who attended my recent action event at Hammersmith bridge to campaign for its reopening, and all the constituents—so many constituents—who emailed me in advance of the debate. I know that many will be watching right now.
This month marks seven years since Hammersmith bridge was closed—seven years of disruption, frustration and avoidable hardship for residents across west London. The anniversary on 10 April was not a milestone that anyone wanted to reach, but it is a stark reminder of how long communities have been waiting for decisive action and how urgently a fully funded plan is needed to restore this vital crossing. Seven years, 2,566 days, 366 weeks or 84 months—that is how long this situation has been allowed to continue, and those of us in Putney and Roehampton have felt every single one of those days.
It is a national disgrace that this issue is not being rectified, but I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful for the many opportunities that we have had to meet since the election and for his engagement on the issue, so I am genuinely looking forward to what he has to say at the end of the debate and to continuing to work together towards replacing the bridge and rectifying this infrastructure failure. I am also grateful to be able to set out clearly the human, social, economic and environmental impacts of the bridge’s closure to ensure that the Minister is under no doubt about the effect that the closure is having.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her patience—the Bible refers to the patience of Job, which I think she has—and for her campaign. She will be aware that when routes such as Hammersmith bridge are closed, the pressure on surrounding infrastructure is greatly enhanced. That is similar to the pressure in my constituency in Ballynahinch, where there is no bypass and we have been waiting almost 30 years for one. Does she agree that the Government must follow through on promises to deliver such infrastructure projects and not simply wait for a time when we have more money? We will never have enough in the coffers, but the time comes for promises made to be prioritised. That is really the issue: people have waited far too long and they can wait no more.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his acknowledgment of the many years that I have been campaigning on this issue and that he has seen me raising it in the Chamber. I agree that there is no time to wait, because the longer we wait, the more the bill goes up, as well as the hardship continuing for us.
Built in 1887, Hammersmith bridge is one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges. It is a grade II listed structure made of wood and wrought iron; its suspension system rests on cast-iron pedestals. It is not just a piece of infrastructure, but part of Britain’s engineering heritage and a national landmark.
However, this is not just about history; it is about people. Hammersmith bridge has always been a lifeline, a critical connection across the Thames used by thousands of cars, people and cyclists—and six bus routes. For seven years, that connection has been broken. The bridge was closed in 2019 on public safety grounds after microfractures were identified in the now 138-year-old structure. It later reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and in April 2025 the carriageway reopened to pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and e-scooter users, but not to any vehicles or those buses. That ongoing closure continues to have profound and far-reaching consequences for my constituents, especially in Roehampton, which is directly south of the bridge, and in Putney, which has the alternative bridge if people are going east.
The impact on daily life has been severe, sustained and deeply felt. Residents in Putney, Barnes, Richmond and Hammersmith have endured years of longer journeys, unreliable transport and constant congestion. I conducted a survey of residents and found that 90% of respondents described the closure as “extremely disruptive”. That comes as no surprise to anyone living locally. This is the issue that comes up all the time, at every event that I go to and almost every door I knock on.
Before the closure, around 22,000 vehicles crossed the bridge each day. Those journeys have not disappeared; they have simply been forced on to other routes, creating daily gridlock across neighbouring areas such as Putney. The latest snapshot data from the Department for Transport shows that, between 2020 and 2023, the overall number of motor vehicles on Putney bridge increased by 16%. Bus services were among the first and hardest hit. Six major routes, including the 209, were withdrawn, and have still not been reinstated. Others, such as the 533, have been diverted, leaving services overcrowded, delayed and unreliable.
Congestion in Putney has now become so severe that in January last year I called together the bus services, Transport for London, the council and the utility services to say, “Look, there’s a real problem here in Putney.” Transport for London officials replied, “Yes, there is. We look across the whole of London, and Putney is especially congested.” In their opinion, part of the reason for that is the closure of Hammersmith bridge.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
On that point, how does the hon. Lady feel about the funding that TfL offered for the reopening of the bridge? To my mind, as a former member of the London Assembly, it has not been sufficient over the last 10 years.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later.
The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads.
Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder.
Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.
On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare.
Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines.
I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives.
I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge.
The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford.
There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment.
The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable.
Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London.
Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure.
Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost.
Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority.
The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next.
Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges.
Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure.
Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it.
I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost.
I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body.
In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body?
Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great.
What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Although I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech, I know she shares with me the sincere wish that, before the end of our parliamentary careers, we may one day be able to stop talking about Hammersmith bridge. I fully acknowledge the severe consequences that the closure of the bridge has had on the hon. Lady’s constituents in Putney, but, obviously, my constituents in Richmond Park, where the bridge lands on the southern bank, have also faced extreme disruption and reduced opportunities as a result of the closure.
It was seven years ago this month that Hammersmith bridge closed to traffic, and it has not reopened since. That means that for seven years buses have not been able to cross the bridge; emergency ambulance journeys from Barnes, in my constituency, to Charing Cross hospital, on the northern bank of the Thames, have taken significantly longer; and local businesses and families have suffered. Since 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £50 million just to maintain the bridge, while successive Governments have failed to act. That is disgraceful. The failure to repair Hammersmith bridge has become a matter of national embarrassment.
In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, said about the bridge:
“The next Conservative Government will not allow this just to remain closed.”
I imagine that that comment was made with the intention of supporting the Conservative candidate’s bid for re-election in my constituency of Richmond Park, but nothing then happened. The Conservatives had five years to take action, but the business case for fixing the bridge sat on their desks for years without being picked up, and they did not even bother to reconvene the taskforce during their last three years in office.
All the while, the estimated costs of repairing the bridge doubled. In 2022, after the bridge had to be wrapped in tin foil to prevent it from collapsing, I pleaded with the Conservative Government to release the funds for the bridge’s repairs. At that point, the repairs were estimated at £140 million. Now, estimates put the cost of repairs at £250 million. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, they could have saved the taxpayer more than £100 million.
The failure of the Conservatives to act has had real-life impacts: Hammersmith fire station still officially serves Barnes, despite it taking 25 minutes to attend a fire in Castelnau. Even the temporary bus routes put in place to connect Barnes and Hammersmith have been cut, and many women and students feel unsafe walking over the bridge in the dark on their return from work or school in the winter months. Barnes residents deserve better.
The last Conservative Government were characterised by lies, scandals and a complete disregard for the public; their contempt for the public was evident, whether they were partying while people could not visit sick relatives in hospital or crashing our economy. It is hardly surprising that breaking their promise to fix Hammersmith bridge was merely a footnote.
Labour has now had a chance to right this wrong, but I have been disappointed by the Government’s lack of engagement on this matter. Despite my cautious optimism following the reconvening of the taskforce in January 2025, there has been almost radio silence on plans to fix the bridge. That was until two months ago, when the Local Transport Minister remarked that Hammersmith bridge would be an excellent candidate for funding via the Government’s structures fund. The sceptic in me worries that that is lip service to residents prior to the local elections, but I am choosing to be hopeful. I believe that this Government are serious about fixing a problem that impacts my constituents in Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake every day.
In the past year, I have written to the Department for Transport five times to request a meeting, and each time, my request has been refused. I say to the Minister today: I do not want to play politics with Hammersmith bridge. Reopening it to emergency vehicles and buses is what my residents want, and like everyone else in the room, I was elected to serve my constituents.
Local activists have joined me in protests and succeeded in keeping the repair of the bridge on the agenda. It is my duty as their MP to amplify their voices and to ensure that they remain up to date with the Government’s latest plans, but I cannot keep local residents informed about developments if the Department for Transport does not engage with me. Transparency is a key tenet of governance, and I am extremely disappointed that local residents have not been afforded it for over seven years. They need answers about the Government’s plans.
When will the Hammersmith bridge taskforce reconvene? What criteria are the Government using to assess candidates for the structures fund? Have funding agreements been reached among Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport? When will the Government announce whether funding will be provided for Hammersmith bridge via the structures fund? The list goes on, and so, for the sixth time, I request a meeting with the Minister to discuss the future of Hammersmith’s bridge.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec, not least because you have allowed me the privilege of speaking although I was a couple of minutes late. I was chairing the Justice Committee, but I did not want to miss this debate. Fortunately, I can be reasonably brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and my friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have covered most of the bases on this issue; I will not repeat what they said.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I will say something complimentary about him in a moment, which will perhaps convince him to spend some money on the bridge. I will also take the unusual step of welcoming the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who knows as much about this as any of us, because he was the deputy leader and then leader of the opposition in Hammersmith and Fulham—we all know where the bodies are buried, even at the high water mark.
Hammersmith bridge is a unique structure. Before people start shouting “Albert bridge”, I will come on to why that is different in a moment. Hammersmith is a beautiful bridge across the Thames—I am prejudiced, but I would say it is the most beautiful—but it has unique challenges. Whether through bomb damage or the corrosion of the materials that make it up, the bridge has reached a state of catastrophic failure. At one stage, it had to be closed in its entirety, even to pedestrian and cycle traffic. That is fortunately not the case now, but I think it is accepted on all sides—people sometimes say, “Oh this could be done cheaply”, by which they mean for a few million pounds, but it cannot—that restoring Hammersmith bridge to its former tolerances would require the replacement of most of the elements of the bridge. It would effectively be a new bridge, albeit looking like the old one. That has particular, unique implications. It is right that this Minister and this Government have taken a far more proactive view than the previous Government—they could not take a less proactive view than the previous Government, who did not answer my letters for three years.
The taskforce has met since this Government came in, and it has defined the issues and pointed the way to next steps. In my view, there are three issues. One is: let us define clearly what the costs are. There is the clear preferred option, which is the Foster and COWI scheme; it is very expensive, but other schemes are less efficient and more expensive. What will the cost of that be and what are the opportunities for funding it? My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the application to the structures fund, and I welcome what the Minister said about that. I notice that the guidelines for grant funding were published last week, so I do not imagine that an application has gone in yet, though I am sure that one will go in quite shortly. It is still an extremely expensive project.
In addition to the costs and sources of funds, there is the thorny issue of traffic loading. I have seen many different figures for traffic displacement to other bridges, including Putney and Wandsworth bridges and Chiswick bridge, which is also in my constituency. There are serious concerns about that, but we must have sets of figures that we can all rely on—I hope the Minister will say that he now has those figures—because otherwise it is pointless if we are going to not agree on those matters. Those are the essential ingredients, from my point of view. The taskforce met last year.
To be full and frank, it is also right to acknowledge that there is a strong lobby against opening the bridge to motor traffic. I know that from my inbox. I have always said that the presumption should be that the bridge goes back to its previous tolerances, which requires a major reconstruction. This has gone on so long that we need certainty and an answer now.
The other thing—I am grateful to the hon. Members who spoke about this—is the acknowledgment of where Hammersmith council is in all this. I think it is right to say that the council has spent over £50 million on preventing the collapse of the bridge, restoring it to make it a walking and cycling bridge and continuing to maintain it. To put that into perspective, that is half the sum spent on repair and maintenance for all bridges over the Thames in the decade between 2010 and 2020.
That local authority, like most local authorities these days, is cash strapped. It prides itself on running a very tight ship, has the third lowest council tax in the country and provides extremely innovative—and, in some cases, unique—services, such as free social care and free breakfast clubs in all its schools. Those are the priorities that its electorate set out for it, and, I think, will again when it is re-elected in two weeks’ time. I did not believe it was feasible to add the £50 million in there. Hammersmith and Fulham council deserves a huge amount of credit for that, but the idea that it will make another substantive contribution towards the bridge is for the birds. The money is just not there. If we are saying that, we are saying the bridge will never reopen. We need a little bit of honesty here.
The comparison was made with Albert bridge. It is very unfortunate that another bridge needs repair. Yes, it is another Victorian suspension bridge with some, shall we say, challenging materials, such as its cast iron structure. But there the similarities end, even though, or partly because, Kensington and Chelsea council is only a minority shareholder, if I can put it that way, but more so because, although Albert bridge will take at least a year and cost £8.5 million on the current estimate—and I am sure that that will grow—Hammersmith council has already spent six times that just on the maintenance of Hammersmith bridge at its current standards.
Let us try to move this forward. I do not want to say anything more today other than that a conclusion has to be reached as a matter of urgency. Decisions have to be made. Not everyone will be happy with those decisions one way or the other, but so long as they are made based on a sound mathematical basis and classic surveys, the finances are there and we are not just wishing for money that does not exist, and we have a secure model for replacement of the bridge, we can go forward in that way. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: nothing is happening while everybody is putting forward their own version of reality or events. Whatever side of the coin they are on, my constituents want that to end.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed.
It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime.
London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis.
Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation. I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK.
The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back. As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis.
Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag. We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis.
A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling. TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue.
My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge. I hope that this Government can seize the opportunity to do the right thing.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then.
I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds.
More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state.
In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing.
Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge.
Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today.
I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that
“Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”,
and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital.
In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence.
This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that
“There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”,
and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I appreciate is of particular interest to the constituents of all three Members that I mentioned, as well as the people in other constituencies across south and west London.
As my hon. Friend is aware, Hammersmith bridge is an historic, grade II listed suspension bridge. It opened in 1887, and was built on the foundations of an earlier bridge that opened in 1827. As has been said, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with which the responsibility for maintaining and making decisions about the repair of the bridge ultimately lies. This unique wrought iron structure has served generations of Londoners for nearly 140 years, and although it is deeply unfortunate that it has been closed to motor vehicles since 2020, the safety of those using it is, of course, the utmost priority.
My Department has worked closely with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London to help to ensure the ongoing safety and stability of Hammersmith bridge. In March 2025, my Department provided the borough with £4.7 million for crucial repairs to Hammersmith bridge hangers. That funding has allowed the continued use of the historic structure by pedestrians and cyclists, and brought the total amount of Government funding for the bridge to £17 million to date. Furthermore, my Department has reconvened the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, which had been on hiatus for several years. That was instrumental in providing a forum in which interested stakeholders could discuss the next steps, go back to basics and look at all viable engineering solutions for the future of Hammersmith bridge.
Last year, my Department reached a spending review settlement with the Treasury, which provided the overall capital envelope for transport investment. As part of the settlement, we secured funding to create a structures fund. It was not about paying lip service for local elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but was established back in SR 25. It will inject urgently needed funds into repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country, making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work in setting up the structures fund, which is also important for a bridge in my constituency. That bridge is also grade II listed, but is older than Hammersmith bridge and is the largest cast iron bridge in the country. The Minister will be awaiting an application to that fund from Staffordshire county council. In response to comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the council, which is under Conservative control, did not approach me before the spending review, meaning that we are having to go through the structures fund. I look forward to seeing the Department’s reply to that hopefully successful application once it goes in.
Simon Lightwood
I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys safer and communities proud of the infrastructure that they depend on. For too long councils have known which bridges and flyovers need fixing, but they have not had the funding to do it properly. The structures fund will put funds directly into the hands of councils to fix those structures for good. That will allow people to get safely to where they need to be on infrastructure of which they can be genuinely proud.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be aware, my Department considers Hammersmith bridge a good candidate for investment from the structures fund. We intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through that route. However, to ensure absolute fairness, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the structures fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constraints of the structures fund. It is also an expectation of the Government that the local contribution toward the cost of any future repairs for Hammersmith bridge is provided. That is the case for all projects being assessed for funding through the structures fund. Although at present there are no plans to specify a minimum level of contribution, my Department intends to assess higher contributions and additional third-party contributions favourably. Some hon. Members mentioned a historical agreement to split the funding into a third, a third and a third. Obviously that was under a different Administration; I just know where we are today.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney continues to call for a further meeting of the taskforce. Indeed, I think we have had many exchanges on that question. Following the previous meeting of the forum, my officials continued their work with key stakeholders to progress viable engineering solutions for the next stage of the works on Hammersmith bridge. A final decision on those solutions will now be made via the structures fund. I assure my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—that when we are in a position to hold a further taskforce meeting, it will discuss issues of significance to the project and ensure that it remains a good use of stakeholders’ time. As such, I intend to convene a further meeting of the taskforce to discuss next steps once funding awards are made through the structures fund and agreed. My officials will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to arrange the specifics of that meeting in due course.
I will remark briefly on the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a shame that he chose to make his response to this issue an overtly party-political broadcast. All I would say is that nobody is buying what he is selling in this instance. People have seen the history. They remember the history. They remember the inaction of the previous Government. We have a structures fund that will help to restore structures across our country. We are taking action; we are not just leaving it there on the desk with inaction.
In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for her continued dedication to highlighting the issues of the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, and the issues that causes to her constituents and others in the surrounding area. I assure her that my Department will provide appropriate support to LBHF for the Hammersmith bridge restoration project as it looks to progress the next stage of repairs through the structures fund.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for his response. I am obviously disappointed that he did not suddenly announce when the taskforce will be, when the funding will be given, when the funding will be reconsidered and when the restoration will happen. I live in hope. I am disappointed not to have an update on the viability of the different options discussed by the taskforce and to have no timetable ahead, but I have hope. I am really glad to hear about the spending review settlement with the Treasury. I congratulate him for achieving that. I understand that it is no mean feat to get that money out of the Treasury and to have that money in the structures fund, for which Hammersmith bridge is a good candidate. I am glad that there are not too many other hon. Members in this Chamber vying for the same pot of money. We are good to go with who we have in the room—that will be fine.
I am also heartened to hear that the structures fund opened last week. That is the starting pistol and I hope to follow up from this debate with a meeting with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Department for Transport and Transport for London to learn when they will apply to that fund. I am also heartened to hear that the third-third-third funding structure is being reconsidered. It is not necessarily the structure on the table, but I hope that the one that will get this over the line is the one on the table in the end.
I will keep coming back. I am sure that the Minister understands that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents not only about the opening of Hammersmith bridge, but about the District line, about the roads, for more active travel and for the ability of cyclists and pedestrians in Putney to enjoy our roads and get where they need to go on time. I look forward to continue to work with the Minister and other hon. Members. I thank hon. Members who contributed to this debate. We work together very much on this issue for the good of our constituents. I look forward to more answers in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of Hammersmith Bridge.
Written Statements
Group Litigation Order and Post Office Process Review Schemes: Closure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
In March 2023, the Department for Business and Trade formally launched the group litigation order compensation scheme to provide full and fair redress to the trailblazers who uncovered the Post Office Horizon scandal. I am pleased to confirm that, as of today, we have received full applications from over 95% of the 492 eligible claimants, and have settled nearly 90% of all claims. As we are nearing completion of the scheme, I am announcing today that any final applications must be submitted to the Department by 31 July 2026, ahead of the scheme formally closing on 31 December 2026. It is my determination to bring closure to this group for all the suffering they have endured, and I hope today’s announcement goes some way in achieving that. We have consulted claimants’ legal representatives and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board about these deadlines and will continue to work with them if there are any claimants, for reason of vulnerability, who will need extra support to resolve their claim.
I am also announcing today that the post office process review scheme will close to new applications on 30 September 2026. This scheme is unrelated to the GLO scheme and to the Horizon system-related shortfalls more broadly; instead, PPR provides redress to postmasters for financial losses caused by other Post Office products, policies or processes. The scheme is run by Post Office Ltd and is open to all eligible former and current postmasters, the vast majority of whom should now have received an invitation to apply. Any postmaster who believes they are eligible but has not received an invitation should contact Post Office Ltd directly at: processreview@postoffice.co.uk. This follows the closure to new applications of the Horizon shortfall scheme and the suspension remuneration review on 31 January 2026.
[HCWS1527]
World Trade Organisation: 14th Ministerial Conference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The World Trade Organisation’s 14th ministerial conference took place in Yaoundé, Cameroon, between Thursday 26 March and Sunday 29 March 2026. I attended alongside the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle).
MC14 took place against a complex geopolitical backdrop and in an uncertain global economic climate. The UK worked shoulder to shoulder with a wide range of members to deliver the change the WTO needs. I joined the UK delegation as one of the six reform facilitators.
I was disappointed that, despite these efforts, members were unable to agree substantial multilateral outcomes at this conference.
While some outcomes were agreed—recommitting to fisheries subsidies negotiations; reaffirming work to support small and vulnerable economies; and moving discussions on proposals around sanitary and phytosanitary and technical barriers to trade to technical committees—they were high-level and procedural.
Work will continue in Geneva on outcomes that were close to agreement, with the May general council providing the first opportunity to assess what might be possible with the membership.
These are outcomes on areas of importance to the UK and global trade more broadly, including setting a path forward on WTO reform, and extension of the moratorium on e-commerce, which keeps digital trade costs low by banning customs duties on electronic transmissions such as software and video streaming.
The lack of further agreement in Yaoundé meant that the e-commerce moratorium fell, as did the moratorium on non-violation situation complaints regarding the trade-related aspects of intellectual property agreement. As a stopgap, to reduce the uncertainty of the lapse of the e-commerce moratorium for UK businesses, the UK has joined 22 other members committing to continuing the e-commerce moratorium between signatories until the next general council this May. This is in addition to the permanent moratorium between the UK and 65 other members provided by the plurilateral agreement on e-commerce, which was launched at MC14, and on which the UK was a key partner in securing a positive outcome.
Despite the challenging environment and disappointing multilateral outcomes, the UK remained a constructive partner throughout and bolstered its international influence and reputation, both on WTO reform, where I drove development of text, and on plurilateral agreements, where the UK joined innovative approaches to implement the agreements on e-commerce and investment facilitation for development. The ECA is a significant step forward in global digital trade, cutting costs and lowering barriers for businesses in the UK and worldwide. It is projected to increase participants’ GDP by up to 0.43%. The IFDA, between 129 members, will make it easier to invest in developing countries, and is expected to increase global GDP by up to 1%. These agreements are a major milestone for the WTO, demonstrating the impact plurilaterals can have.
I was pleased that the UK also announced £13 million in technical assistance and capacity building support ahead of MC14 to enable developing economies to participate in the global trading system, and a further £1 million is already committed to the WTO fisheries fund.
The UK will continue to work with those willing to make progress where we need it. This includes seeking a comprehensive e-commerce moratorium, and actively driving WTO reform in Geneva. The UK’s communication on WTO reform (6 March) sets out our vision for a more relevant, flexible and accessible WTO. We will work to pursue this, including by addressing trade imbalances by tackling market distorting practices, establishing new rules on contemporary areas like digital and environment, and achieving a full-functioning dispute settlement system to ensure accountability. This will complement our ongoing work beyond the WTO pursuing high-quality FTAs that support businesses, workers and consumers, while expanding our network of partnerships across global markets.
[HCWS1529]
Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government have accepted three recommendations from the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee to honour the extraordinary life and legacy of the late Queen. Queen Elizabeth dedicated 70 years of service to the nation, providing a sense of continuity through times of great change and forming a part of our national identity. Her ability to connect with those from all walks of life was strongly felt by the millions she met, and her contribution persists today in our memories, as well as the ongoing work of the many charities she supported. It is fitting that her legacy is commemorated in a way that reflects her exceptional contribution to public life. I am pleased to update the House on these plans on the centenary of Queen Elizabeth’s birth.
The committee’s recommendations include:
The proposed national memorial in St James’s Park, which commemorates Queen Elizabeth and her lifelong commitment to public service. It features a new standing statue of the late Queen overlooking the Mall at Marlborough gate, showing her at an early stage of her reign. This memorial will honour Britain’s longest-serving monarch in a way that will serve the nation for generations. It will be a place where people can come together to celebrate and honour Queen Elizabeth’s remarkable 70 years of service; a place where her values of public service continue to live on in public life.
Nearby will be a statue of Prince Philip, in recognition of the support he gave her during her reign as our longest-serving consort —both by sculptor Martin Jennings. The memorial will also include a new cast-glass bridge inspired by Queen Mary’s fringe tiara, which was worn by Queen Elizabeth on her wedding day; a bust of Her Majesty in her later years by sculptor Karen Newman; and the Commonwealth Wind Sculpture, a new abstract work by Yinka Shonibare. The design also includes gardens dedicated to the Commonwealth and to the nations of the United Kingdom, creating spaces for relaxation and reflection. This memorial will enhance St James’s Park as an inspiring public space.
A new UK-wide charity, Queen Elizabeth Trust, set up to administer a legacy programme in the late Queen’s name, which will be independent from the Government. Inspired by the words “everyone is our neighbour”, shared by Queen Elizabeth in a speech to mark her 21st birthday, the trust will work hand in hand with communities, providing funding and targeted support to restore and sustain spaces that will thrive long into the future. This charity will put the late Queen’s values to work, actively strengthening communities and empowering local people. The trust will be funded by an agreed £40 million endowment from the Government, creating a catalyst for the trust to raise further funds to maximise its impact over years to come. This is a unique opportunity to harness the legacy of the Queen to create positive and innovative change in communities across the UK.
The Queen Elizabeth digital memorial, a new website showcasing the late Queen’s life and legacy through a range of archive content and public memories. The site brings together newly digitised materials from archives and media collections, underpinned by listings from a newly digitised version of the Court Circular which maps every official engagement the Queen undertook during her reign. At the heart of the digital site is a public memory portal, inviting people from around the UK, the Commonwealth and the world to share their own memories of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen Elizabeth digital memorial is a living archive—one that will grow and develop over time, serving as both a place of commemoration and an enduring resource that carries her values forward, inspiring future generations to engage with her life and legacy.
A recommendations report, setting out the recommendations in detail, has been published today and I have deposited a copy of that report in the Libraries of both Houses in Parliament.
[HCWS1531]
Electricity Generator Levy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The electricity generator levy was introduced in 2023 and is a temporary tax on windfall revenues for large renewables. The EGL is currently calculated as 45% of a generator’s annual revenue above a benchmark price, which is currently £82.61 per MWh and has been increased in line with the consumer prices index since 2024. New investments in renewable energy are not subject to the EGL.
When gas prices are high, renewable generators that are not in receipt of contracts for difference receive substantial increases in revenue because they can sell the electricity they generate at higher prices, without having any new costs.
The Government have reviewed the design of the EGL in light of the conflict in the middle east and are announcing today that the 45% EGL rate will increase to 55% and will be extended past its scheduled conclusion in 2028. This will support the Government’s objective of reducing the impact of gas prices on businesses and households. Firstly, it will encourage participation at a competitive price in wholesale contracts for difference, a new proposal announced today by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), which seeks to weaken the link between high gas prices and high electricity generation prices. Secondly, it will ensure a proportion of any exceptional revenues resulting from the pass-through of high gas prices to electricity generators’ revenues is available to Government to support businesses and households with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east on the cost of living.
The rate increase will take effect from 1 July 2026 to respond to the high prices that generators are benefiting from now because of the crisis in the middle east.
[HCWS1528]
Clean Power
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
As the world faces the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, the lesson for Britain is that exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets cannot give us the energy security we need. For Britain and many other countries, clean energy is the only route to financial security, energy security and national security. That is why today the Government are setting out how in response to this crisis we will double down on our mission for clean energy.
First, we will speed up our drive for clean home-grown power that we control. In less than two years, we have secured enough clean, home-grown power for the equivalent of 23 million homes through two record-breaking renewables auctions, invested in the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, and broken down the barriers in the way of building, from planning reform to fixing the grid connections queue.
In response to this conflict, we have already announced that we will bring our next renewables auction forward to July. Today we go further. We will intensify efforts to build renewables on public land with a cross-Government sprint to identify opportunities and actively bring projects forward. My Department will work hand in hand with public land owners and managers, such as the Ministry of Defence, Network Rail and Forestry England, as well as Great British Energy, to harness untapped public assets, from railway warehouses to unused brownfield sites, to significantly expand the pipeline of renewables. This could unlock up to 10GW of capacity even using only a fraction of Government land, powering the equivalent of around 5 million homes.
We will also step up our work to get critical clean energy projects built across the board. This includes accelerating vital grid infrastructure with a package of reforms from land access rules to networks consenting, as well as plans to extend permitted development rights and expand self-build for grid connections.
Secondly, we are also accelerating our efforts to drive electrification across the economy. We will support the British people to access technologies such as solar, batteries, heat pumps and electric vehicles, which can help shield them from fossil fuel shocks, ensuring that everyone, not just the richest in our society, can see the benefits.
We will accelerate our £15 billion warm homes plan wherever we can to protect families before next winter. That starts today with bringing forward £100 million of funding, in addition to existing plans, as we upgrade tens of thousands more social homes this year. We will also support families and small businesses who use heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas, who have been particularly exposed to rising prices, by increasing heat pump grants available to them to £9,000 this financial year.
Following our announcement that we will bring plug-in solar to shops in the UK, we have earmarked £25 million with a view to piloting support for low-income families for plug-in solar and a vision of a house-by-house, street-by-street roll-out. We will make it easier than ever for families and businesses to adopt these technologies, including removing barriers to on-street electric vehicle charging, which will particularly help those living in flats and those without a driveway.
Today we also announce that Great British Energy will put solar on the roofs of 100 more schools and colleges, in addition to the 250 schools and 260 NHS sites already confirmed, to cut their bills and save money that can be reinvested in public services.
Thirdly, these measures come alongside decisive action to break the link between gas and electricity prices, so that families and businesses see the benefits of the clean power we are building.
We have already moved from gas setting the price of electricity around 90% of the time in the early 2020s, to around 60% today. Thanks to our mission, we estimate that gas will set the wholesale price around half of the time by 2030. By building clean power, we are expanding the proportion of generation on long-term fixed price contracts from around 20% today to over 60% by 2030, which is crucial because for those generators it breaks the link with volatile gas.
Today the Chancellor and I set out decisive action to go further. From next year we will seek to transfer legacy low-carbon generators, which supply about a third of our power today, on to fixed-price contracts that deliver value for money for consumers. This will be a voluntary decision for those generators. Alongside this, the Chancellor has today announced changes to the electricity generator levy that will change the economic incentives for generators to move on to these fixed contracts.
Together, these measures will accelerate the delinking of gas and electricity prices: increased revenues mean we can support businesses and households with the impacts of the conflict in the middle east on the cost of living.
Alongside these steps, we are also publishing our reformed national pricing delivery plan, which will ensure that families businesses benefit from a cheaper and more efficient energy system.
This package of measures represents a significant acceleration of our mission to take back control of Britain s energy, so that we can protect the British people from this and future fossil fuel shocks and bring down bills for good.
[HCWS1530]
Meningitis B: Dorset
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I am updating the House on the recent cases of meningococcal disease in Dorset.
As of 9 am on 21 April, the UK Health Security Agency has confirmed three cases of meningococcal disease among young people in Weymouth, Dorset. These three cases have been confirmed as meningitis B and are the same sub-strain serotype P1.19, P1.15. UKHSA has confirmed that these cases are not linked to the recent outbreak of meningococcal disease in Kent. The onset dates of these cases were between 17 March and 12 April. Close contacts of the patients were offered antibiotics as a precaution.
Two of the cases attend Budmouth academy but are in different year groups and are contacts of each other via a social network not related to the school. Currently no confirmed epidemiological link has been made between these two cases and the third individual who attends Wey Valley academy. This may mean that this strain of menB bacteria is transmitting more widely among young people in Weymouth. Due to this, and as a precautionary measure, antibiotics and the Bexsero vaccine are being offered to young people currently in school years 7 to 13 (or equivalent in terms of age), or anyone not in full-time education who would be in one of these year groups, who study or live in the Weymouth, Portland and Chickerell areas of Dorset. UKHSA and Dorset council have issued advice to staff, parents and carers at all educational settings in the area.
A single dose of antibiotics is effective at reducing transmission. UKHSA has currently deployed 6,500 doses of stockpiled antibiotics to the local area. The roll-out began on Saturday 18 April 2026, initially for pupils who attend Budmouth academy and Wey Valley schools, as the cases attend these settings. Pupils that attend other schools and colleges and other eligible children and young people in Weymouth who do not attend education settings will be invited to receive antibiotics and vaccination over the course of this week.
As of 5 pm on 20 April, antibiotics have been given to 2,226 individuals.
We are not recommending any precautionary measures for schools or other educational settings in Dorset outside of the Weymouth area at this time as the risk to others is very small.
This response is in line with UKHSA guidance on meningitis and is being rapidly co-ordinated and delivered by UKHSA, Dorset council, the NHS, the Department for Education and local education settings.
UKHSA is providing support to education settings, in close partnership with the Department for Education. All affected education settings in Weymouth remain open and events involving children and young people should continue as normal. UKHSA has published up-to-date information to ensure parents and concerned members of the public can find the latest information on how the incident is being managed and who can access antibiotics and vaccines: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/antibiotics-and-menb-vaccination-to-be-offered-to-young-people-in-dorset
Children and young people should attend their education setting normally, unless specifically told otherwise by a health professional. Attendance supports the education, health and wellbeing of children and young people.
As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House on 17 March in the context of the recent meningococcal disease outbreak in Kent, I have asked the Joint Committee on Vaccinations to re-examine eligibility for meningitis vaccines to assess, for example, an expanded offer to older children and/or young adults. JCVI will provide updated advice to the Department this summer around whether, and to what extent, a vaccine programme for older children and/or young adults would be clinically effective as well as an assessment of the cost effectiveness of such a vaccination programme.
Meningococcal disease is a serious illness that can cause meningitis—an inflammation of the protective membranes surrounding the brain—and sepsis (blood poisoning). Symptoms include a rash that does not fade when pressed with a glass, sudden high fever, severe or worsening headache, stiff neck, vomiting or diarrhoea, joint or muscle pain, dislike of bright lights, cold hands and feet, seizures, confusion or delirium, and sleepiness or difficulty waking. The onset can be extremely rapid. Anyone experiencing symptoms should urgently seek medical attention. Early treatment saves lives.
Around 300 to 400 cases of meningococcal disease are diagnosed in England every year. It is important for teenagers not only to take up the MenACWY vaccine routinely offered by the NHS, but also to be aware that this vaccine does not protect against menB, which is why knowing the symptoms and seeking early treatment is so important. It is important that those who are eligible for antibiotics and vaccinations do come forward and take up the offer, as this will help to reduce the risk of more young people becoming unwell.
I want to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly to care for those affected and keep people safe: the UKHSA, the Department for Education, Dorset Council and public health officials working to contain the outbreak; the NHS teams administering antibiotics and vaccines, and those who have cared for young patients in hospital; the school staff keeping students and parents informed, helping young people through this outbreak, and keeping their education going; and the thousands of students, pupils, and other members of the public who have so readily and responsibly come forward for antibiotics.
[HCWS1532]
Grand Committee
Cancer Outcomes in the UK
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That the Grand Committee takes note of cancer outcomes in the UK and of plans to improve them including diagnostic care and research.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, sitting on the same side as the Minister does not mean that I am on her side. I thank all noble Lords taking part in the debate and look forward to their contributions. There is a formidable array of talent, so the Minister should get a good response. I thank her for making time to respond to the debate, although, at the end, she might wish that she had not done so.
No one can be in any doubt that poor outcomes for patients with cancer in the UK need urgent attention. Today is World Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Day, which observes a blood cancer with low survival rates, primarily because of late diagnosis. One in two people in the UK—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Is it possible for the noble Lord to speak a bit louder? We old, deaf people back here find it quite hard to hear him.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can everyone hear me now? Can the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, hear?
Lord Patel (CB)
Thank you. One in two people in the United Kingdom will develop cancer. Being born with cancer is rare, but a new cancer diagnosis is made every 75 seconds. The UK consistently ranks near the bottom of the table for survivals and deaths from cancers. That is despite several cancer plans and strategies for change, which are often heralded as world class. In 2011, we had Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer; in 2015, we had Achieving World Class Cancer Outcomes; and in 2019, we had a plan to make cancer a priority. None of those plans delivered the promises made. The result is that cancer outcomes have not improved much in England for nearly two decades.
Cancer care is a touchstone of the wider NHS, which itself is also delivering poor performances. It is in that environment that we will discuss the plan. We now have the Government’s National Cancer Plan for England: Delivering World Class Cancer Care. What is different about this plan? The Government say that
“it heralds a full modernisation of our approach to cancer care … fit for the future”.
The report is ambitious but lacks detail on implementation plans, which I hope the Minister will tell us about today.
What are the key commitments? The first is to improve five-year survival rates, so that, by 2035, three in four people with cancer will live more than five years, either cured or living well. The second is to restore performance in meeting cancer waiting-time standards by 2029. The third is to expand screening programmes, including lung cancer screening, by 2030. The fourth is to increase genomic and genetic testing, so that genetic tests are to be reported within 10 days for 96% of patients. The fifth is to accelerate the use of AI, robotics and modern imaging for early diagnosis. The sixth is to reduce variation in accessing new treatments and technologies and to address inequalities. The seventh is to strengthen cancer alliances among system leaders and to boost research and clinical trials.
I have mentioned but a few. All of that and more is being promised when cancer services are under immense pressure. Demand continues to rise, with a complex case mix. Most importantly, staff shortages persist, particularly in radiology, oncology, cellular pathology and cancer specialist nurses.
The shortfall in workforce in critical areas of cancer care is significant. In radiology, it will be 39% by 2029; in oncology, it will be 19%. For nursing and specialist nurses in cancer care, there is a 10% shortage in most trusts. There is a shortage of 4,000 specialist cancer nurses and 6,000 nurses in community diagnostic centres. In histopathology, only 3% of departments say that they have adequate staffing. The Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists say that, with the shortage, the workforce will not be able to deliver on the needs in the cancer plan. To do so, the workforce may need to grow by as much as 45% by 2035. In radiology alone, that may cost £1.5 billion a year. I ask the Minister when the Government will publish a fully funded workforce plan for cancer care. We look forward to that soon.
I will now pick up on some of the key commitments, as I do not have time to go through them all. On the commitment for three in four patients to survive five years by 2035, the current average survival for five years is 55% to 60%. Of course, it varies with cancer types: it is good for prostate and skin melanoma, but survival rates are much lower than in many other countries for equivalent cancers across the board. On restoring performance for standards of, for instance, early diagnosis at stages 1 and 2 in 80% of cases by 2029, that is improving: it has now improved to 72.8%. Sixty days from the first referral to treatment is a standard that has not been met since 2015. For treatment in 31 days from diagnosis, the target is 96%; currently, it is not doing badly at 93%.
On expanding screening programmes and eliminating cervical cancer by 2040, the increase in HPV vaccination and self-diagnosis HPV kits is the way that the Government hope to meet that target. The current uptake of the HPV vaccine is 75.5% in girls and 70.5% in boys, with huge regional variation: for instance, in London, it is only about 64%. What plans do the Government have to improve uptake of vaccination and how will the elimination target be met? As far as the HPV kits are concerned, what happens if a woman self-tests and finds that she is HPV positive? The services need to match up to what the patient might need.
Another target is increased genetic and genomic tests. The plan suggests that there might be value in testing whole-genome sequences, the so-called polygenic risk scores aligned with the lifestyle, but they are of no value because the risk is not yet identified or valued. It is different if you are testing for inherited genetic diseases, such as if a patient has a BRCA gene, as then you might follow up with others in families. But the value of whole-genome sequences as polygenic risk scores cannot be right.
Genome testing for mutations in cancer, of course, is important for personalised treatment, and the target is for 98% in 10 days. Currently, it meets this for 68% of patients, because of the workforce issues. What might be the implications if the treatment is delayed because these tests are not reported in time? For instance, a four-week delay in treatment increases risk of death by 6% to 8%, so it is important that these tests are reported quickly. These days, without genomic mutation testing, treatment cannot be started with cancers.
Another target is to accelerate use of AI, robotics and modern imaging for early detection. It is true that in the trials carried out using the triad—it is important to use the triad of AI, robotics and modern imaging—it is quicker to obtain a tissue sample, for instance, but these have to be done together and there are costs of equipment, training and robotics.
The Government hope in the report to increase the use of robotics from 70,000 currently to half a million by 2035. Small studies show benefits, because it fuses metabolic and structural data for better staging and treatment of cancers, but the digital pathology staff remain a key workforce required for this. Can this be standardised across the whole NHS rather than in specialist units alone?
The next issue is funding. Together with staffing, funding is a critical issue. The Government have made a commitment of about £6.5 billion, rising to £15 billion depending on progress. However, estimates from the Health Foundation suggest that, to roll out AI, robotics, modern imaging and digitisation across the NHS, we will need £14.5 billion to digitise the NHS, capital infrastructure worth £5 billion, one-off implementation costs of £2.5 billion and recurring costs of £1.5 billion. Does the Minister think that this is realistic and that the Government will be prepared to fund it?
The main other issue is reducing inequalities in cancer care. We must reduce inequalities in cancer outcomes for deprived populations. The biggest challenge is in the 20% of deprived people, because there is a 60% higher death rate in this population. Late diagnosis is more common in this population, there are low treatment rates, people are more likely to have cancer diagnosed in an emergency in the A&E department and there are low screening rates. Focusing on reducing inequalities in cancer care will be key to meeting the targets set in the plan.
Who is going to do this? The suggestion is that the cancer alliances will be responsible for planning and tracking the delivery of cancer services in deprived areas with an extra £200 million in funding. Is that likely to be adequate funding, knowing that it will require new staff to man these services? I ask the Minister, therefore, what the metrics for the improvement in care of the deprived population will look like.
The developments in technology, drugs and diagnostics in healthcare and cancer care come thick and fast. Many are mentioned in the report. Some of them are not even yet validated. Treatments are very expensive. For instance, CAR T-cell immunotherapy would cost in the region of £280,000 per treatment per patient. The technology is expensive. The current percentage of people getting chemotherapy, radiotherapy, cell and gene therapy and immunotherapy in England is lower than in countries with better cancer outcomes. Implementing what works and improves outcomes for the whole of the population—early diagnosis and prompt treatment, with the workforce to deliver that—will result in better outcomes. I repeat that, knowing what we know, early diagnosis and prompt treatment will improve outcomes well before we use these technologies. They are important, but we need to do that first. Patchy introduction of state-of-the-art technology, early-phase research into the practice of untested diagnostics, science fiction and a promise of personalised nirvana tomorrow will not be the answer.
The plan is thin on the prevention of cancers apart from on tobacco control, which I applaud—and we all applaud. Treatment using GLP-1 and GLP-2 blockers for obese people is not stopping obesity; it is treating obesity, at a cost. In the plan, there is nothing about what the Government will do to reduce obesity, or on the reduction of alcohol consumption, but we know that 40% of cancers are related to lifestyle issues. Can the Minister explain why the report is so thin on prevention?
I will make a comparison to one country. Much of the cancer plan comes from learning from the Danish model. Denmark, some 25 years ago, had similarly poor outcomes for cancers. It embarked on an incremental cancer plan to the point that it is now recognised as the country with the best cancer outcomes. Its latest plan is to focus on helping people living with cancer and those in end-of-life and hospice care. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wants to know when England will get such a plan. To invest in this, Denmark is to spend 690 million Danish kroner. It does not sound like big money, although its population is small.
The key feature of the Danish plan and the better results is political consensus. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, might remember that, in a debate that we had about the long-term sustainability of the NHS, I said that the NHS’s survival depends on a political consensus. The then opposition Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, laughed and said, “Dream on”. I guess that that is still the problem. If we do not have political consensus, we will just have more problems.
Funding was the other issue. All the five-yearly plans in Denmark were funded. Importantly, there was a promise to the people that the service would deliver early diagnosis within 14 days or less and that treatment would start within 14 days or less. The promise was that, if you did not get that, you could go to any other region in Denmark for your treatment or even another country. Would the Government make such a promise to the population of England?
The Government’s plans are ambitious, but will the Government maintain a consistent commitment to delivery no matter what it takes? Otherwise, in three to four years’ time, we will debate a new cancer plan that will be even better and world-class. However, I wish the plan well and I hope that we begin to get results quickly.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing the debate and pay tribute to his indefatigable commitment to improving health outcomes and championing research and to his powerful and moving speech. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I know that I will not be the only speaker whose family has been touched by cancer. Seeing much-loved family members or friends suffer is the reason we can all agree that patients deserve timely diagnosis and the best possible treatment. In the past, I have spoken about pancreatic cancer and brain cancer from my own family perspective. I will focus my remarks on these and other cancers, including cancers of the liver, lungs, oesophagus and stomach, which are grouped, rather grimly, as the least-survivable cancers.
I warmly welcome the recently published national cancer plan, which has brought these rarer cancers into focus. For the first time, we have a national plan that makes specific commitments to less common cancers and I commend the Government for that. The plan aims to have three out of four people diagnosed with cancer survive five or more years by 2035, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out. It recognises that progress for people affected by less survivable cancers is key to this aim. As the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce notes,
“these cancers account for a disproportionate number of cancer deaths and require focused action if overall survival targets are to be met”.
Earlier detection and faster diagnosis for all forms of cancer are critical to improving people’s access to treatment and, ultimately, their chance of survival, but progress on the rarer cancers still lags behind progress on others. Survival rates for these cancers have remained largely static over the last 25 years, partly because their often vague and non-specific symptoms can make early diagnosis very difficult. Just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared to 54% of all cancers. A large proportion of people with less survivable cancers are diagnosed in A&E, so the national cancer plan’s strong focus on early diagnosis is welcome.
It is an excellent and ambitious plan informed by cancer professionals, patients and their families but, as ever, it will take funding to secure real improvement and change. Like others, I am aware that this plan is launched at a time when there seem to be substantial economic growth problems and demand on public spending is being stretched in all directions. We need to be realistic about what can be done here and now. Our efforts must be focused on what will have the greatest impact. I was therefore very pleased to read last week that we are making progress in our efforts to cut set-up times for clinical trials. Approval processes in the UK have been slow and bureaucratic, so faster access to new treatments and medicines can be only a good thing. Will the Minister say more about how we can now encourage people to access clinical trials and tackle historically low patient recruitment?
We need to prioritise research, particularly into the less survivable cancers. We know that rare cancers account for some 47% of UK cancer diagnoses and some 55% of cancer deaths, yet they receive a fraction of research funding and clinical trial work. The Rare Cancers Act, passed last month, is a huge step towards addressing this imbalance, and I pay tribute to Scott Arthur MP, who saw it through its passage in the House of Commons, and my noble friend Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay, who steered it through its final stages in this House. It will drive research innovation to improve treatments and survival for rare cancers, including brain tumours and pancreatic cancer. Can the Minister give us any encouragement on moves to appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, as called for in the Act and in the National Cancer Plan for England? I am very conscious of the substantial funds made available only eight years ago, following the death of our noble friend Lady Jowell. A very small proportion of that money has yet been spent, and that was eight years ago.
In finishing, I want to highlight some encouraging developments in diagnosing a cancer that currently has a UK survival rate of just over 8% and that has affected my family particularly. Innovative diagnostic tests and emerging AI technologies have real potential to help GPs triage patients with vague symptoms. For example, the VAPOR breath test for pancreatic cancer being developed at Imperial College and part funded by Pancreatic Cancer UK can detect volatile organic compounds released from tumours at an early stage. Results are showing that this quick test, which involves breathing into a bag at the GP’s surgery, can pinpoint whether a person is likely to have pancreatic cancer, with the results available to GPs in three days. This would put an end to the patient going backwards and forwards to the GP many times with non-specific symptoms and allow for earlier treatment. The test is now undergoing national clinical trials, and it could be in GP surgeries within the next five years. I end by saying: we live in hope.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I, too, most warmly congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate. I always think health matters should be handled by a former president of a royal college, and it is excellent that we have another former president of a royal college with us today. This should be a criterion for joining the Lords, and we should have far more of them. I declare my interests. Many noble Lords know that I have been involved in the appointment of key leaders of eminent health and academic institutions for the past 26 years or so. I should also say that I am the mother of a gynaecologist and the grandmother of a medical student.
Cancer is one of those issues that tells us quickly and clearly whether a health system can turn scientific excellence into public benefit. The Government are right to call cancer performance a tide on which all ships rise. They are also right to say that science and innovation will be the engine of our reinvention. I thought the noble Baroness was going to talk about universities and academic research, which she would have had greater right to do.
These are not casual phrases; they are statements of national ambition and they are fully justified. England remains a country of distinguished scientific and clinical strength. We are capable of world-class discovery, trials and research leadership. The challenge now is whether that strength is translated reliably into public benefit—faster diagnosis, quicker access to treatment and more equal outcomes, as the noble Lord said, for patients across the country.
There is much in the national cancer plan that deserves genuine welcome. It is more serious than many previous strategies about research, clinical trials and innovation. It commits to research remaining
“an enabler for the lifetime of the plan”.
It promises annual progress reporting and sets out in-depth three-year reviews, which is the right direction. It also sharpens the real test before us: it is no longer simply whether England can produce excellent cancer research, which we can; the tough question is whether we are as good at adoption as we are at discovery. It is whether Ministers can show, in practical terms, who is responsible for each research priority, by when and by what measure of success they will be judged.
As noble Lords are aware, the central issue is translation. We know that this country can lead in genomics, diagnostics, cancer biology and trial design. The harder test is whether innovation travels quickly enough from the laboratory bench to the clinic, and then from the great research centres to the district hospitals and the patient, who is anxiously and often fearfully waiting. This is the point at which scientific strength either becomes public benefit or remains trapped as potential.
The Institute of Cancer Research puts this with admirable clarity. Professor Kristian Helin warns:
“Cancer research cannot succeed in isolation. It relies on a strong life sciences and higher education ecosystem, underpinned by world-class infrastructure, sustainable investment and access to the best skills and talent”.
Can the Minister say who, across government, is responsible for making sure that research, universities, immigration, infrastructure and NHS reform are pulling in the same direction? I quickly pay credit to the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who has been the most wonderful advocate and leader in this sector. Ministers of whichever department would pay respect to his contribution.
Cancer Research UK—I pay tribute to its chair, who will have much more to say on this, or he may talk about his experience as chief executive of the NHS—makes a similar point in more practical language. Will this plan be the turning point for cancer that patients deserve? It will require much faster progress. The next step must be translating it into delivery—a telling phrase: delivery, not declaration. Have we heard it before? We have, but this time it needs to happen. When will we see the full implementation architecture behind the research and innovation elements of the plan? In plain English, when will we know where responsibility sits, what resources are attached and what would count as success or failure by the midpoint of the plan?
We have been warned before that the problem is not only strategy but consistency. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about Denmark. Summarising research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Professor Ellen Nolte said that
“sustained and consistent strategic planning and investment are crucial”.
That is not a throwaway line; it is one of the clearest lessons from comparative success. Countries that improved did not merely publish attractive plans. They backed them, refreshed them and stayed with them. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that this cancer plan will be treated not as a launch but as a governing discipline? What protections are there against the familiar pattern in which bold strategic language is followed by uneven implementation and fading attention?
Clinical trials are crucial, and this is where it becomes real for patients. The plan says that
“every cancer patient gets the opportunity to access relevant clinical trials quickly, fairly and easily”.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s important review, which set out 27 recommendations and argued that the NHS should become
“the world’s leading platform for health and life sciences research”.
There has indeed been genuine progress, for which I pay tribute to the Government.
The Government report that the average set-up time for commercial, interventional, clinical trials has fallen from 169 to 122 days. That is dramatic. The latest UK clinical research delivery data shows that 71% of commercial contract CTIMPs applying between April and September 2025 recruited a first participant within 150 days. These are steps in the right direction.
The MHRA and the wider system also deserve credit. The Government say that trial applications received rose by 9% between January and November last year, compared with the previous year. Scientific advice meetings on clinical trials rose by 75%. This is real improvement and should be acknowledged, but of course speed is only one part of the story; fairness also matters. Who hears about the trial? Who lives near enough to join it? Who can manage the travel, time off work and family pressures that participation involves? Can the Minister commit to publishing participation data by geography, deprivation and ethnicity—the noble Lord made this point—so that the House can judge whether access is truly widening?
The question becomes sharper still. Cancer Research UK warns that around 90% of patients are recruited to non-commercial studies. The plan gives too little assurance that these trials will not be left behind. The ABPI’s latest report shows why that matters. The number of new industry trials initiated in the UK encouragingly rose last year.
I see that I need to speak faster. I want to say something about workforce, because the Minister has been asked very clearly about that. Obviously, it is a critical factor. I cite the Royal College of Physicians, the Society of Radiographers and many others. We need the people to make it happen. Were the Minister able to have another debate, I could give the rest of my speech.
England’s cancer challenge is less about what we can discover and more about what we can translate. We know that this requires the NHS, industry, academia and charities working together, and I believe that, with determination, we can see real progress.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on securing this important debate, to which it is a pleasure to contribute. I declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing, and I am delighted that I will be followed by a previous president of the same organisation—making at least three in the Room. I intend to cover elements of the themes identified in the plan on community services, the value of screening, the workforce necessary to deliver for patients and the worried well, and an emphasis on psychological support, as well as the protection of patient data and the control of its use for UK-led research and prevention of cancer.
I join others in welcoming the ambitious plan, which will require cultural change across the workforce to improve the communication between assessment, diagnostic and treatment teams, as well as the use of AI and digital information. The aim is to provide seamless delivery of care closer to patients’ homes. This, of course, should be cost effective. The plan has been described as a revolution, and it is vital that the strategy for implementation and delivery is clearly led and monitored to ensure that the change actually happens. With the emphasis on community-based care, the current workforce will, in many instances, need the opportunity to refresh and enhance its skills and knowledge for delivering care outside acute hospital settings. As many people know, I help lead some of that, closing a large mental hospital into community care. The challenge may be similar to achieve this plan—not that I am suggesting we can shut the Royal Marsden.
Clinical staff often work alone in the community, which can be challenging for staff who spent most of their careers with easy access to other multi-professional team members for support and guidance, particularly when a patient’s condition suddenly rapidly deteriorates. Staff must be confident and skilled to provide care in the community, which will call for professional development and dedicated preparation time. The King’s Fund argued that a persistent shortage of radiologists, pathologists and severely overstretched nursing teams often results in haphazard organisation and innovation, rather than planned organisational change. The cancer plan highlights some excellent examples of innovation from the Humber and North Yorkshire Cancer Alliance pilot, using nursing and pharmacy teams to introduce home-based delivery of some subcutaneous chemotherapy drugs. The Christie supportive oncology services demonstrate the value of integrated care provision, from psychology support to dietary advice and symptom management.
The issue at hand is how such innovation can be rapidly and efficiently scaled up nationwide. One patient using the Christie service said:
“The cancer treatment helped, but it was the wider support that”
the service
“gave and continue to give that had the most impact on my quality of life … The team saw me as a whole person, not just as someone with cancer”.
Yet age-standardised premature cancer mortality is twice as high in some areas of the UK than in the best performing ones. The plan acknowledges the need to increase investment in research and open clinical trials more widely, so that patients who want to do so can have the opportunity to participate. Patients from deprived areas, particularly in rural and coastal parts of the country, such as where I live, are less likely to be offered the opportunity to be in trials, as are those from Black, Asian and other ethnic minority groups, who remain underrepresented.
With NHS digital systems advancing and patients’ individual records stored in their NHS app, protecting personal data is crucial. Data should be used only for British research to drive new knowledge and enhance care. The future workforce plan aims to equip managers and clinical and support staff for effective delivery. Staff need dedicated time for training and research, particularly in fields such as nursing. This protected time would support professional growth, boost morale and help retain staff.
Action 23 states that
“every patient will have a clinical nurse specialist or other named lead to support them through diagnosis and treatment”.
As such, clinical nurse specialists will need to be more central in workforce models and must be adequately trained in psychological support for patients with long-term physical and mental health care needs, because people now live with cancer for long periods. Many people who live with cancer fear recurrence, so it is important to focus on living happily and productively for the best quality of their lives, including working, where it is feasible to do so, as the plan states.
The NHS is, rightly, free at the point of delivery for screening, diagnosis and treatment, yet there is little mention in the plan of the need to consider withdrawing some screening programmes at a certain age—for example, for breast cancer over the age of 70—because the cost benefit, many would argue, is unjustifiable. A small cohort would of course benefit, so the NHS allows an opt-in mechanism. However, that has the potential to increase health inequalities, with the worried well requesting the service, which the private and contributory healthcare systems of many other countries would not pay for as a benefit.
Withdrawal of treatment is always a difficult issue and requires delicate conversations between the patient, their family and significant others and the clinical team involved. Such withdrawal must be decided on sound guidance based on relevant research knowledge. British universities are central to cancer research, but there is very little information about their role in this plan.
It is estimated that nearly 40% of cancers are preventable by reducing tobacco and alcohol use, increasing exercise, improving diet and lowering obesity. The Government must be congratulated on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill but, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the plan makes no reference to the fact that a minimum unit price for alcohol could make inroads too.
Will the Government consider mandating protected time for continued professional development for clinical healthcare staff to support their adoption of the new technologies, the faster treatments and the vision of this plan? Can the Minister say whether screening programmes will be reviewed to ensure cost-effective investment for specific cohorts, and whether appointing a named national lead for screening innovation should be considered? In addition, can she confirm that the use of patients’ clinical records for research will be led by British universities, in partnership with the NHS, using clinical trials that recruit from the whole country, and that they will not be sold for commercial use?
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, a fellow nurse. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing such a timely debate. There is a lot to commend in the National Cancer Plan for England, but, speaking as a nurse and a workforce researcher, I think that there are definitely challenges, as we have heard, to be met in ensuring that services meet the physical, psychological and social impact of cancer care.
Cancer detection rates are increasing alongside survival rates and complexities of diagnostics as well as care pathways in a population with growing co-morbidities. The national cancer plan advocates for every cancer patient to have access to a clinical nurse specialist, as we have heard. However, it is uncertain how likely it is that this will be achieved with the lack of nurse specialists currently available in the workforce, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, highlighted.
There is strong evidence that specialist and advanced practice nurses are cost-effective and clinically effective. These highly skilled and educated nurses lead clinical services and the administration of complex chemotherapy protocols. Anyone in contact with chemotherapy services will be aware that this is nurse-led and stressful work, as the pressure is on to ensure that high volumes of patients are treated safely. Burnout rates for chemotherapy nurses remain high. Specialist and advanced practice nurses are a precious human resource that needs to be supported.
One of the challenges to accessing treatment is the availability of training and education for specialist nurses, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. According to a recent survey by the UK Oncology Nursing Society, training and education is patchy across the country. Two factors constrain the expansion of this highly skilled cancer workforce: the limited supply of supervisors to support advanced practice nurses and funded opportunities to develop their capacity. Access to training and education is essential to build the necessary confidence and competence in delivering ever more complex care. Core to these skills are expertise in advanced communication, psychological support skills, which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, highlighted, and symptom assessment and management.
Nurses are also integral to cancer research, especially the running of clinical trials, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, highlighted. The MRC trials infrastructure demonstrates a high reliance on research nurses for patient recruitment, and the review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, into commercial trials showed a worrying decline in the number of such trials conducted in the UK. This has profound implications for our standing as a life science destination and the part that that plays in our economic growth.
Oncology nurses are also researching patient outcomes and filling important gaps in the evidence base of symptom management through their research. I shall provide some examples from my experience as a supervisor of doctorates—one of my students happens to be here today, which is brilliant. One student undertook a co-design study with patients who had developed peripheral neuropathy from chemotherapy, which is a horrible side effect. She was intent on mitigating some of the further complications of this painful—terribly painful, in fact—and debilitating condition. Another is currently examining the sexual recovery of women after bladder removal for cancer. It is quite staggering that this remains largely a hidden problem yet has profound impacts on the women concerned and their partners, often traumatising women in the process. Another student pioneered a new way of measuring workload for cancer nurses. Strong evidence links patient mortality and education in acute care, so it is not inconceivable that the same principles might apply to cancer patients.
Despite the value placed on specialists and advanced practice nurses, it is worth noting that the British Medical Association has recently raised concerns about the expansion of advanced practice nurses substituting for medical roles, arguing that some employers are using them to replace doctors and that that poses a threat to patient safety. It is unclear what the specifics of this evidence might be but, based on my own and colleagues’ research, nurse autonomy poses no threat to multidisciplinary teamwork. On the contrary, it is an essential underpinning for enhanced interprofessional working between nurses and doctors.
Turning the plan into a reality requires a workforce that is supported, skilled and enabled to work differently. The Government’s forthcoming NHS long-term workforce plan refresh will be a pivotal moment to set the direction for cancer care. It must set out how nursing roles will be funded and supported to deliver the plan. Can the Minister confirm what support the Government are putting in place to enable the professional career development of cancer nurses?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate and for introducing it so powerfully in his usual inimitable fashion. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, as a former patient and as someone married to a current patient.
We all recognise the ambition behind the National Cancer Plan for England. It sets out a vision of earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and improved survival—goals that command universal support across this House. But ambition, however welcome, is not the same as delivery, and it is on delivery that this plan invites scrutiny.
First, on early diagnosis, the plan rightly emphasises catching cancer sooner, when outcomes are far better. The new 28-day faster diagnosis standard is a meaningful step forward and the UK is improving five-year survival rates across a range of cancers, with particularly strong performance in breast and some children’s cancers. Yet the plan leans heavily on expanding screening and awareness, without adequately addressing the capacity constraints already facing primary care and diagnostic services. General practitioners are overstretched and diagnostic hubs, though welcome and promising, remain unevenly distributed. Without a credible workforce strategy, radiologists, pathologists and specialist nurses, the aspiration of earlier diagnosis risks becoming little more than a slogan.
Secondly, on children’s cancer, we have seen important advocacy, including the Solving Kids’ Cancer response to the 10-year plan, which rightly highlights that childhood cancers are biologically distinct and require tailored approaches. Yet the national plan does not fully reflect that specificity. Children’s cancer should be treated as a dedicated priority, not simply folded into a general cancer narrative. Survival rates for some paediatric cancers have improved, but progress has stalled in others, particularly rare and aggressive forms. Families still face fragmented pathways, limited access to trials and inconsistent genomic testing. If we are serious about improving outcomes, this requires dedicated investment, co-ordinated research infrastructure and guaranteed access to specialist centres and innovative therapies.
On specialist centres, the plan must not blur the distinction between general cancer care and specialist excellence. The Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research remain among the world’s leading cancer institutions, with the Marsden identified as one of the top five cancer centres globally for research impact and the country’s only specialist NIHR biomedical research centre for cancer. That matters because a serious national cancer strategy must support both broad improvement across the NHS and world-leading specialist research that drives the next generation of treatments. We should not ask our flagship centres to carry international responsibility without giving them the sustained support that they need.
Thirdly, the plan speaks of reducing waiting times and meeting treatment targets. But we must be candid: the NHS has struggled to meet its existing cancer waiting time standards for several years. Simply restating targets does not make them achievable. What is missing is a clear funded pathway to recovery, one that accounts for workforce shortages, ageing equipment and the persistent backlog exacerbated by the pandemic. Targets without tools will not deliver results.
Fourthly, as many have mentioned, there is the question of inequality. Cancer outcomes in England vary significantly by geography, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. The plan acknowledges these disparities, but its remedies remain broad and underspecified. We hear of targeted interventions and community engagement, yet there is little detail on how these resources will be shifted to the areas of greatest need or how success will be measured. Without a sharper focus and accountability, inequality risks being noted but not narrowed.
Fifthly, on innovation and infrastructure, particularly the overlooked issue of medical radioisotopes, modern cancer care increasingly depends on nuclear medicine, both for diagnostics and targeted therapies, yet the UK remains heavily reliant on international supply chains for key medical radioisotopes, which are vulnerable to disruption. A serious national cancer plan should address this strategic gap. Developing a domestic supply, whether through research, reactors, cyclotrons or alternative production methods is not merely an industrial question but a matter of clinical resilience and patient safety.
We have a plan, project ARTHUR, to site a reactor at the old Trawsfynydd site in north-west Wales, supported by the Welsh Government and the local skilled population. I urge the Minister to look seriously at this plan. Without secure access to these materials, some of the very innovations that the plan champions cannot be reliably delivered.
Sixthly, on patient experience, the plan speaks of holistic care, mental health support, rehabilitation and survivorship, and this is welcome. Maggie’s, the independent charity that I know well, helps to provide this support across the country in its 24 centres sited alongside hospitals. Yet many patients today still report fragmented care, poor communication and insufficient support after treatment ends. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to outcomes and quality of life. A truly patient-centred plan would embed these elements as core standards, not optional extras.
Finally, on accountability, the plan sets out ambitions over the coming years, but it lacks clear milestones and transparent reporting mechanisms. Parliament and the public must be able to track progress in real time to understand not only what is promised but what is delivered. Without this, there is the risk that the plan will become another well-intentioned document that fades from view.
None of this is to dismiss the importance of having a national cancer plan. On the contrary, it is precisely because cancer care is so vital that we must hold such plans to the highest standard. We need a strategy that is not only ambitious but credible, not only comprehensive but deliverable, and not only forward-looking but grounded in the realities of today’s NHS. If this plan is to succeed, it must be strengthened with a robust workforce strategy and a serious commitment to children’s cancer; securing domestic capabilities in critical technologies, such as radioisotopes; realistic funding; targeted action on inequality; equitable access to innovation; and clear mechanisms for accountability. Without these, we risk raising expectations that cannot be met, and that is something that neither patients nor clinicians can afford. The challenge before us, as ever, is not to write plans but to make them work.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate and for his excellent introduction. I declare my interest as the founder and a trustee of Health Equality Foundation, a UK national charity.
I welcome the Government’s National Cancer Plan for England and pay tribute to the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, for his moving forward. I and many others are grateful for his openness about his own cancer experience and his dedication to improving cancer outcomes. The scale of the challenge is clear: cancer is the biggest killer in our country. The UK ranked 26th out of 36 developed countries in cancer mortality rates in 2021. The latest NHS digital data shows lower survival rates in the most deprived areas. As such, I applaud the Secretary of State’s unapologetically bold plan. Such determination is needed.
The last Labour Government’s introduction of the two-week referral pathway in 1999 was a landmark moment. It is encouraging to see the Government building on that legacy, with a goal of saving 320,000 more lives by 2035. I speak with over 40 years’ experience in the health service and 30 years’ experience as a consultant gynaecologist at St George’s Hospital. I served as a junior doctor on medical oncology wards, and I have close friends and family who have faced cancer.
I shall focus specifically on gynaecological cancers and the inequalities that run from incidence to outcomes. Gynaecological cancers affect more than 22,000 women each year in the UK. Around 60 women get a diagnosis every single day. Ovarian cancer alone causes more deaths than the other four gynaecological cancers combined, yet only about one-third of cases are diagnosed early, according to Ovarian Cancer Action. The inequalities are glaring. Research from Target Ovarian Cancer found that Black, Asian, minority and ethnic women wait, on average, six days longer than white women to begin treatment after their referral for ovarian cancer.
Uterine cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the UK for women, shows higher incidence rates among Black women. Data from Cancer Research UK shows the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on cancer rates: mortality from cervical and uterine cancers is 61% higher in the most deprived communities, while vaginal cancer has one of the steepest deprivation gradients, with 88% higher incidence in the most deprived areas of our country.
To improve outcomes and tackle deep-rooted inequalities, I shall raise areas where ambition must be matched by delivery. On screening and innovation, the ambition to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040 is world leading, and I welcome the rollout of HPV self-sampling. However, for other gynaecological cancers, our early-detection tools remain inadequate. The UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening with the protein biomarker CA125 and ultrasound scans demonstrated that detecting more early-stage disease did not translate into fewer deaths. On the other hand, cell-free DNA screening for ovarian cancer is emerging as the most promising screening tool for the general population. Investment in this area, and in biomarker research, early detection algorithms and clinical trials should be encouraged. As the renewed women’s health strategy highlights, femtech has a role to play, but it must be clinically evaluated with peer-reviewed research and linked to NHS pathways to reach all women, not just those with the means to seek it out.
On HPV vaccination, when misinformation reduced uptake in Ireland, disadvantaged schools were hit hardest and recovered slowest, according to a report in Vaccine. Having led a British Red Cross vaccine campaign for ethnic minorities in our country, I know that communities place their trust in friends, families and local organisations. Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care works closely with the voluntary sector and local government to counter misinformation in underserved communities?
On clinical research, a Target Ovarian Cancer survey found that only 23% of women with gynaecological cancer were asked about joining a clinical trial, despite 60% wanting to. I applaud the plan’s commitment to accessible trials, but access must not be determined by postcode. As the King’s Fund has highlighted, this requires the expansion of trial workforce capacity across the country. Will the Minister confirm how the Government intend to ensure that capacity keeps pace, particularly in deprived areas?
Finally, on community diagnostic centres, I welcome the £2.3 billion investment in diagnostics in the community and the commitment to post-menopausal bleeding clinics. We need genuine one-stop diagnostic facilities in community centres. By repurposing the existing resources from secondary care to communities and using the single purchasing power of the NHS to procure ultrasound machines and other testing facilities, this could be achieved in the community. Will the Minister confirm that community diagnostic clinics will be implemented as genuine one-stop shops for gynaecological cancer diagnosis, with particular attention to deprived communities in our country?
The Government’s ambition that three in four people survive cancer by 2035 is one that I support whole- heartedly, but it must reach every woman in our country—those in deprived communities, those from ethnic minority backgrounds and those with the gynaecological cancers that have been underfunded for far too long.
This plan can be the turning point to bridging the gender health gap and addressing inequalities in access and outcomes for the biggest killer in healthcare. I fully endorse the national cancer plan and look forward to its implementation.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Patel for having secured this important debate and having introduced it, as he always does, in such a thoughtful and sensitive fashion. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my own interests as the chairman of King’s Health Partners and of the King’s Fund.
I start by congratulating, through the Minister, His Majesty’s Government for having established such a thoughtful, comprehensive and forward-looking national cancer plan, and for having described a substantial ambition extending, as we have heard, over 10 years. It covers so much of what is essential in ensuring that we have a joined-up strategy that can potentially achieve the impact and ambition so rightly described.
In its initial description, the ambition covers the problem that we currently face: we experience, as a nation, untimely delays in diagnosis, access to imaging and access to a proper histopathological evaluation of biopsy samples; and an inability, therefore, to apply advanced diagnostic and characterisation techniques to targeting therapeutic intervention in an increasingly precise fashion. There are delays in establishing treatment for patients and in ensuring that patients are able to participate in clinical trials. We have done little of what needs to be done to drive a proper national programme for prevention in the area of cancer. It is of course vital, and there is a necessity—because, actually, we are making substantial progress and we must not be too gloomy—to start focusing on survivorship and how we are able to help patients beyond that initial therapeutic intervention when they are potentially not cured and have to continue to live with their cancer.
As we have heard, it is also very clear that previous Administrations have made substantial efforts to secure improved clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Much of that innovative and imaginative approach to improving clinical outcomes in cancer has happened at a time in our national history when the NHS has benefitted, as have many other public services, from the so-called peace dividend—the period since the end of the Cold War. In 1990-91, NHS spending was some 4% of GDP, and in the year 2023-24, it was some 8%: a near doubling from £1 in every £25 of public expenditure some 30-odd years ago to £1 in every £12 of public expenditure.
That was a period of substantial plenty, when strategies and plans were presented but, regrettably, did not achieve absolutely what was intended and expected. As a result, this new cancer plan now lands at a time when our fiscal situation in the country, with the demands for increased defence expenditure, makes it highly unlikely that the substantial increases in public funding that have previously been devoted to healthcare will be available in the future.
It is therefore right that in this Grand Committee debate so many noble Lords have identified the question of how this plan will be implemented. What are the potential restrictions, not only financial but organisational and structural, that are likely, regrettably, to ensure that much of this great ambition that is absolutely necessary for the future health and well-being of our fellow citizens will not come to pass?
In this respect, it is very important, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to look at examples from other national experiences. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership has looked at these questions. As we have heard, the jurisdiction of Denmark represents an important example of what can be achieved: the clear lesson is that there has been consistency after a national cancer plan was adopted. That consistency manifests itself over many decades in political consensus. At a time when there was substantial opportunity for various Administrations to make further and increasing commitments to healthcare expenditure, it was possible that our country could live without consensus about the long-term delivery of health strategies, but we are no longer in that luxurious position.
I would therefore be interested to hear from the Minister how, in taking forward this impressive plan, His Majesty’s Government propose to achieve the substantial consensus—not only political but professional and, more generally, among the general public—that will see this strategy live through its 10 years, modified if it requires modification, but without wholesale dismissal. Those who deliver have to be in a position to do so with some certainty.
Secondly, in the circumstance we find ourselves with the economy and our fiscal constraint, how do His Majesty’s Government propose to find the substantial additional investment that is inevitably required when one looks at the ambition of this plan? As we have heard from other noble Lords, there are so many areas that we would all support, but each will require substantial investment—beyond the investment that is already made in delivering the day-to-day care that is required for cancer patients today and the increasing demands on that care through the adoption of already available innovation—to be provided at scale and pace across the entire country. Therefore, we need clarity about the approach to funding, the approach that will be taken in the Department of Health and Social Care now that it has incorporated the functions of NHS England back into the department and the approach that will be taken to prioritise funding on cancer over other priorities that will inevitably be identified for other disciplines and for the management of other clinical conditions.
Finally, so much of what is described in this impressive plan is predicated on the basis of ensuring that research is no longer an adjunct to the delivery of cancer care, but central to it. One of the points that we have heard, which is absolutely correct, is about accelerating the opportunity for clinical trials. We know that patients managed on clinical trial protocols, or in the clinical environment where they can access clinical trial protocols, have improved clinical outcomes. There is a need to drive broader equity in access to those clinical trials.
In addition, it will be vital to ensure that there is consensus on the use of data. Data will be critical to drive the innovation agenda and the implementation agenda. Can the Minister give a view on the approach of His Majesty’s Government to ensure that there is broad societal consensus on the use of data, on a routine and regular basis, to achieve so much of this ambition?
Lord Drayson (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and to contribute to this debate on the National Cancer Plan. I thank my colleague on the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declared interests in the register, and also my 30 years’ experience as a life sciences entrepreneur, covering vaccines, medical devices and, most recently, AI.
The Government’s National Cancer Plan is to be welcomed, as it sets out the ambition for earlier diagnosis, faster access to treatment and more personalised care. However, it does this at a time when the UK’s economic circumstances make the ability to fund this ambition challenging, to say the least. There is a growing appreciation, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned, that the nation’s health is linked to the nation’s wealth, and cancer survival rates provide a potent measure of both. Increasingly, the public are aware that, as our economy stagnates, our ability to fund the most advanced and effective treatments declines. The rationing of drugs and treatment in hospital corridors are as much a symbol of our failure to create the wealth needed to fund a first-class healthcare system as they are a symbol of dysfunction within the NHS system itself.
The National Cancer Plan is comprehensive in its description of the importance of embracing the potential of modern life sciences, across genomics, AI and robotics, to name just a few. The plan is heavy on aspirational actions, such as:
“Action 3. We will harness AI to speed up lung cancer diagnosis”.
But it is light on details of implementation.
In my opinion, the UK does not have an innovation problem in cancer care, and the plan describes many terrific examples of such innovation in islands of improvement across the country. We have a world-class life sciences industry, but it increasingly struggles to scale. So often, the impact of new technologies such as AI and genomic medicine depends not on scientific potential but on how quickly they are adopted across the NHS as a whole and then embedded into the routine care of patients. Time and again, we make the discoveries but then do not have the will or the money to adopt and benefit from them. So our life science innovators drift abroad or get acquired, and the innovation that should improve patient care and help fund our NHS is lost.
My eldest daughter, hearing that I was giving this speech today, happened to visit the Science Museum yesterday. She is currently doing a post-doc studying the effect of radiation treatments on the brain. She was struck in the current exhibition in the Science Museum by how many innovations UK science has delivered to the world, but how few of them have led to the industrial capacity that generates the wealth to help fund our NHS.
Poor procurement of technology by the NHS is at the heart of the problem. It is a balkanised and fragmented process across the trusts and other groups involved in procurement at both national and local level. It lacks a joined-up approach based on evidence, and it lacks a clear, long-term strategy for procurement that aligns health outcomes with the nation’s economic growth.
There is a shortage of expertise in the NHS in technology adoption and management, in particular of AI, and an overreliance on very expensive management consultants that charge huge fees. Failures in NHS procurement not only undermine the quality of care and waste taxpayers’ money but create a barrier to businesses and investors wishing to invest in UK life sciences. Life is particularly hard for small companies. The unwillingness of NHS trusts to accept evidence from other trusts means that companies spend ages repeatedly doing pilots across multiple trusts, never getting to a critical mass of business in the UK market.
The fact is that the NHS determines the fate of our UK life sciences industry, an industry in which we have had a great track record of science innovation but now lack scale. Just look at the life sciences sector that was listed on the London Stock Exchange 20 years ago compared with the list now. It is a pale shadow of its former self.
Much is said in the cancer plan about how artificial intelligence will have an enormous impact on cancer detection and the discovery of new cancer medicines. However, if the UK does not develop the onshore expertise to create software systems aligned with the values of our NHS and our society, the NHS will have no choice but to continue to buy systems that, like Palantir’s, are closed, cause vendor lock-in and lead to wealth being created elsewhere. We will then continue to import the biases that were embedded in those systems when their AI algorithms were trained on the US healthcare system. Our NHS will become less fair and less aligned with the values of our society, and the wealth created by the AI wave will accrue overseas.
We must scale the innovations in cancer treatment that we know work, ensuring that our pension money is invested at home in innovative British companies that can supply them, and we must invest in the infrastructure needed to support the adoption of these innovations. Only then will we enable our NHS to deliver the high-quality cancer care that people want and help create the wealth needed to pay for it.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this timely debate. One of the lessons of history is that, so often, we fail to learn the lessons of history. I say this particularly in relation to prostate cancer. It is the most diagnosed cancer in men aged over 45 in England. There are higher risks of prostate cancer linked to ageing, black men and family history. Early diagnosis is critical. Survival is nearly 100% when detected early, but it drops to around 50% at stage 4. Yet one in five men—that is 10,000 annually—is still diagnosed too late. Despite these earlier warning signs, there is still no UK-wide screening programme for prostate cancer.
This is a cancer that affects men from every social and professional class. Some of the most well-known names in the world have spoken of their prostate cancer diagnosis. Some of them are still with us; others are not. They include Robert De Niro, Warren Buffett, Colin Powell and Nelson Mandela. Closer to home, this cancer has affected Ian McKellen, Stephen Fry, Rod Stewart, Andrew and Julian Lloyd Webber, and, another knight of the realm, Chris Hoy. I mention these names because the fact that these famous men have been prepared to discuss their personal diagnosis has helped expose the need for more active screening.
Although prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men in 112 nations, the testing procedures vary greatly from country to country. For example, some nations, such as Sweden, have trialled organised screening programmes involving PSA—prostate-specific antigen blood tests—and subsequent MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging, tests for men of a certain age. But America and Australia have elective individual decision-making approaches. My first question to the Minister is: what analysis of other nations’ prostate cancer treatment strategies are the Government carrying out? Have they come to any conclusions about the way forward for the United Kingdom? Organisations such as Prostate Cancer UK, Prostate Cancer Research and the British Association of Urological Surgeons all support the introduction of a screening programme. The Telegraph has been campaigning in recent months for men with the highest risk of the disease to be offered a test.
According to Prostate Cancer Research and Deloitte, targeted screening is not only life-saving but cost-effective. Their modelling shows that it could deliver a £14,000 net socioeconomic benefit for every high-risk man diagnosed. Bearing in mind the reluctance of some men to submit themselves to rectal examinations, what assessment have the Government made of the BARCODE 1 study on the early detection of prostate cancer using saliva samples to identify high-risk patients? I am pleased that the UK National Screening Committee has now recommended national screening for men aged 45 to 61 with certain confirmed gene mutations, but when will it next be considering whether to extend this to other men at risk of prostate cancer?
As for cancer more generally, NHS England has advised caution when making comparisons between historic and latest available data on cancer. This is because cancer registrations in England can take up to five years after the end of a given calendar year to reach 100% completeness due to continuing late registrations. If we cannot get the data right, how can we have confidence in the information being provided? Additionally, diagnoses of cancer are registered for each separate cancer, so this means that a person diagnosed with more than one type of cancer would appear more than once in the total data. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, data is vital. I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. Can the Minister indicate what plans there are to improve medical data collection, because this is key, perhaps by using more AI technology? Also, what plans do the Government have to invest more in AI and robotics to help spot cancers earlier and increase access to innovative cancer treatments as soon as they become available?
Regarding international comparisons, the UK has lagged behind other countries on mortality rates. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD—data on deaths from cancer in developed countries showed that we presently rank 26th out of 36 countries for cancer mortality rates. It is against that background that I welcome the Government’s publication on 4 February of this year of their 10-year National Cancer Plan for England, but I note that some cancer and public health academics have been critical. For example, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has raised concerns with the plan’s delivery model, arguing that it lacks clarity on what additional resources and leadership capacity would be required to achieve its ambitious goals.
A relevant issue is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. An important factor in end-of-life management is palliative care and pain relief, yet in the UK some independent hospices rely on charity to fund up to 70% of their costs. The quality of palliative care is very much a postcode lottery. Will the Government consider putting more funding into palliative care?
The good thing is that, on average, we are all living longer, but our life should be measured on its quality, not only on its length. So much of cancer care depends on the power of the purse, but we also need more emphasis on prevention and early detection. As the saying goes, cancer can be a dark place to be in, but we can bring light.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate regarding improving cancer outcomes and diagnostic care and research. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing it.
I shall first concentrate on the importance of early diagnosis, which, as we are all aware, can and does improve cancer outcomes. I note that in the 12 months to September 2025, early diagnosis rates were 3.5 percentage points above the pre-pandemic level, equating to around 10,000 more people being diagnosed at stages 1 and 2.
I also welcome the commitment to reducing the significant number of rare and less survivable cancers that are diagnosed in an emergency setting. I specifically mention children and young people whose cancers are often more aggressive and faster growing, and which require specialist intervention to ensure that the right treatment is given at the right time in the right place.
When patients receive a cancer diagnosis, everything is fluid and seems uncontrollable. They are desperate for treatment to begin but, all too often, patients living in rural and coastal communities have longer waiting times for a preliminarily diagnosis. As research shows, for some cancers, a four-week delay in starting treatment increases the risk of death by 10%.
All sides of this Room desperately want to see clear improvements in cancer survival and outcomes, so this plan has to demonstrate commitment to a detailed trajectory for improvement against real-time scale settings.
I will also focus on radiotherapy. I very much welcome more diagnostic centres with more community diagnostic centres being opened on evenings and weekends, and investments in 28 cutting-edge radiotherapy machines engaging in a more fluid process. But the crux of the matter is that we urgently need many more radiographers. This would make it easier for radiotherapy centres to use cutting-edge, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, which is crucial to so many patients. An end of radiotherapy deserts is what we all want to see.
The national figure for access to radiotherapy is 53%, which does not seem particularly high in itself. However, compare this figure to that in my area, Yorkshire and the Humber region: it is 35%, which cannot be fair. Improved data transparency on the quality of care and performance of trusts’ cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country, so much more work is required to bring postcode lotteries to an end.
Targets in the plan are also welcomed but, if they are to be met, there is a need for workforce expansion, especially in radiology and clinical nurse specialists. The radiotherapy workforce stands at approximately 6,400, with a 15% vacancy rate for clinical oncologists and a 10% vacancy rate for therapeutic radiographers and healthcare science workers. We also need improved training and pathways into oncology and radiotherapy specifically.
The withdrawal of the previously agreed £15.5 million to support the implementation of AI auto-contouring across England was a damaging blow to progress in radiotherapy, as this software can reduce the planning process, saving consultants lots of precious time. It is estimated that there are at least 22 machines currently operational past the 10-year recommended lifespan and, by the end of 2026, that increases by an additional 27, so the need for a rolling programme of machine replacement is very clear. It is urgently required.
Finally, more outlining of operational details and milestones is required to deliver these cancer ambitions. As many others do, I look forward to future early diagnosis in this field, which will fundamentally improve outcomes for all cancer patients, wherever they live. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, like others I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Patel for securing this debate today, which is acute myeloid leukaemia day—so it seems very appropriate. I declare my interests as a professor of palliative medicine at Cardiff University and am employed at Velindre cancer centre, as well as my vice-president roles with various hospices, particularly City Hospice, Marie Curie and Hospice UK. I also declare my position with Cicely Saunders International, because its research in palliative care is the main research point not only for the UK but across the world. My other declaration must be as chair of the Bevan Commission in Wales, because I am mentoring one of our fellows on a project on early diagnosis of post-menopausal bleeding.
I will take a slightly historic view on this. The Calman-Hine report came out in 1995; it was the first report on cancer services and set out a cancer plan to take things forward. The current cancer plan reflects the importance of having vision and ambition because, without that, things will not change. One has to set a path forwards, and the Calman-Hine report did. It changed the organisation and structure of cancer services at the time, started multidisciplinary team working, and created centres and units.
That report was also the first time that palliative care was recognised as an integral component of cancer services from the time of diagnosis through all stages, not only in end-of-life care. It tried to set uniform standards and ensure a holistic approach, with early intervention that recognised the physical, psychological and social support needed by people from the time of diagnosis onwards. There is evidence in oncology that, usually within eight to 12 weeks of diagnosis, if palliative care services are available in parallel with the cancer services, there are improvements in quality of life and mood, patient and caregiver satisfaction, and cancer survival overall.
Unfortunately, though, the NICE guidance recommendations on 24/7 access to specialist palliative care services have not been fully implemented, neither those from 2004 nor from 2011. So will this plan integrate with the palliative care plan and strategy that we anticipate will come forward in the autumn? Without that integration, we will not meet patient need. It has already been said that two-thirds of hospice funding is from the charitable sector, yet Marie Curie estimates that about a third of people dying have unmet palliative care needs. It has been estimated that up to 90% of people dying in hospital without any specialist palliative care support available have their needs unmet.
Frailty, of course, makes everything worse in cancer treatment, from diagnosis right through to outcomes. As has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the ethnic minorities there is poorer access to everything, including palliative care. There is poorer access to emergency palliative care in both deprived areas and rural areas.
Where financial data is available, it has been shown by Peter May and colleagues from Hull York that, in England in 2022, specialist palliative care supported over 20,000 patients to leave hospital and have their care outside it. They calculated that, overall, this input from specialist palliative care saved £800 million, with a saving of 1.5 million hospital bed days. That is not insignificant at all. For each patient with home specialist palliative care involved, there was a saving of almost £8,000, with quality-adjusted life years also improved. For hospital patients, it was not quite as much: it was £6,500 in cost savings, but with that same improvement in quality of life.
One of the problems has already been alluded to: although the faster diagnostic standard had been met, the delays from the decision to treat, and indeed from referral to start treating, has meant that targets have not been met to date. Almost half of young people later diagnosed with cancer attend three or more GP appointments before receiving a referral to cancer services for diagnosis, meaning that teenagers have the longest time to diagnosis, with 67% diagnosed as an emergency. This puts huge pressure on parents in particular, who have to provide emotional support and take time off from work, and it of course has an enormous financial drain on the whole family.
At this point, I point out that some of these young people have very rare tumours. If we look at ocular melanoma, which is a very rare tumour, there is a subgroup of patients who will respond extremely well to some treatments that are not yet NICE-approved and not available on the NHS, even though they have been used and developed for over 20 years. Therefore, families—here I declare an interest as having a family member involved—are having to support their treatment, because the dramatic response means that they are living, rather than having already died, leaving young families.
As well as putting pressure on NICE to review the way it looks at the management of some rare cancers, will the Minister also look at the workforce training needs? Sadly, there is evidence that, even though over 90% of those dying will have some palliative care needs at some level—which is often adequately provided by generalist services when they have back-up from specialist services—the electronic staff record of nursing staff in the community shows that only a small number have actually had palliative care and end-of-life role training. The problem is that this means that about 78%—over three-quarters—of home care workers report insufficient training in pain management or anticipatory prescribing, while two-thirds have never received formal training and do not have access to palliative care services during their shifts out of hours.
There is much to be done, but much that can be improved. I hope that this plan will move us forward with better integration. The evidence shows that where we have better integration of services, it costs less and the clinical outcomes are improved.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a member of the General Medical Council.
Like many other noble Lords, my interest in this very important subject is personal. My father and older sister both died of lung cancer. My father became addicted to smoking back in the days when tobacco companies pretended that the products they were selling were not killers. By the time he showed symptoms, it was too late to operate on him, even though he was otherwise very fit and healthy. He died at the age of 66, only one year into his retirement. I was pregnant with my firstborn, so he never got to meet his grandchildren. I have spoken about my sister before in the House. She had profound and multiple learning and physical disabilities and lived for years in an NHS mental hospital, before she went into the community, where staff and patients were smoking everywhere. She may well have been a victim of passive smoking.
Given this background, noble Lords can see why I very much welcome today’s debate and the Government’s national care plan. My interest is also a professional one: I have had a nearly 20-year career as a non-executive in various NHS organisations in local, regional and national roles, including as chair of the Lambeth Primary Care Trust and Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, plus being on the board of UCLH in London.
I remember well the previous Labour Government’s efforts to tackle cancer. I became the chair of Lambeth Primary Care Trust during the period of the 2000 plan, which introduced national targets to speed up treatment: no more than a two-week wait from GP referral to diagnosis and no more than a month from diagnosis to treatment. Great progress was made. In 2005, even the always sceptical National Audit Office reported that:
“Substantial progress has been made in implementing the NHS Cancer Plan, with many targets in the Plan met … This should contribute to the downward trend in cancer mortality rates and continue to bring significant benefits to patients”.
That Labour Government were surely right to start with speeding up treatment. Once you know that someone may well have cancer, time is of the essence.
However, we all know that this is only one leg of a three-legged stool, with early diagnosis and prevention completing the set. Prevention of lung cancer is, of course, why the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, steered through the House so effectively by the Minister, is such an important piece of legislation. I have been hugely proud to support it, and I have spoken about it in this Room, as I know many others here have. It is too late for my father and sister, but it will save the lives of thousands of others. Early diagnosis of lung cancer is a key and enormously welcome commitment in this Labour Government’s new cancer plan.
It is not before time. It is shocking to learn that early diagnosis rates were flat for the best part of the past decade. It is little wonder that the Cancer Survival Group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine reported last year that,
“the speed of improvement in the survival index for all cancers combined has slowed – it increased nearly three times faster in the early 2000s than in the early 2010s”,
placing us 21st out of 28 European countries when it comes to five-year lung cancer survival rates, for example.
However, early diagnosis rates have increased significantly in the past few years, and successful implementation of the National Cancer Plan for England will enable us to build on this welcome improvement, particularly when it comes to lung cancer. As the plan points out, lung cancer screening is already proving transformational. Critically, three-quarters of patients whose lung cancer has been diagnosed as a result of screening are at stage 1 or two, in contrast to fewer than one-third of those diagnosed outside the programme. That programme would probably have saved my father’s life. The most encouraging news is that it is tackling inequality too, as screening can be targeted to where it most needed. This is why the plan is able to point out that the use of lung cancer screening has helped to reduce the overall gap in cancer early diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas by one-quarter.
I am delighted to hear the commitment to complete the rollout of lung cancer screening within the next four years, meaning that
“meaning every eligible person in England will have received their first invitation for a check”
by 2030, with the intention that at least 23 cancers will be diagnosed earlier by 2035, potentially saving thousands of lives, and that,
“because smoking is a risk factor for other cancers, trials are under way to check whether ‘moving the scanner down’ may be a cost-effective way to look for other cancers when people are receiving lung cancer scans”.
Of course, writing these commitments down does not make them happen. Delivery is a hugely complex task, as others have referred to, requiring the hard work and commitment of huge numbers of dedicated people and the resources they need to succeed. Labour delivered well on its last cancer plan, and I very much look forward to it doing so again this time around.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I pile on to the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on this fantastic session. Given the excellence of the contributions that we have already heard, I will just draw out a small number of things. I will try not to be duplicative of the brilliant contributions that the Committee has heard.
I declare my interests as chair of Cancer Research UK and chair of King’s College London’s council. Cancer Research UK has a proud tradition of supporting research in the UK as well as internationally. Some eight out of 10 medicines that NHS cancer patients use were either developed by or with Cancer Research UK. CRUK has pointed out that we are indeed the beneficiaries of that research. We have seen a 29% reduction in the death rate from cancer since 1989. The Government’s very welcome new NHS cancer plan points out that five-year survival rates increased from about 50% to 60% between 2008 and 2022. Your chances of dying from cancer on an age-adjusted basis are lower now than they were five years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, but for all the reasons we have heard, there are no grounds for complacency. There is an enormous opportunity in front of us, and the cancer plan is right to set that out.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, in order for it to succeed it must meet two signature commitments: that three-quarters of people get diagnosed at stage 1 or 2 by 2035 and, linked to that, the expectation that three-quarters of people will survive five years as a consequence. That makes complete sense, but we should reflect on what have been the barriers to achieving that up to now, so that we get it right over the next decade.
There is a caveat: we need to be careful that we do not just increase the proportion of stage 1 or 2 diagnoses by detecting a lot of what would otherwise have been indolent cancers that would not have gone on to cause people problems. That has got to be matched by seeing an age-standardised reduction in the number of people diagnosed at stage 3 or 4, so we really are clear that we are getting stage shift and not just expanding into a wider group for whom the diagnosis would not necessarily have been a problem.
That is significant, because our understanding of cancer biology continues to evolve. The standard assumption that individual mutations at cellular level grow, spread and develop into advanced disease or systemic diseases such as cachexia turns out to be not quite right. My colleague Professor Charlie Swanton at the Francis Crick Institute has pointed out, for example, that a typical 60 year-old will probably have 100 billion cells in their body with some form of cancer mutation. So, in a sense, the question is, why is cancer not more common, given that underlying fact?
Continuing to invest in research to understand the tumour microenvironment and the way in which oncogenes and suppressor mechanisms interact and cancer spreads is what we are going to have to achieve if we are going to make the progress needed to get to the 75% target. That cannot be achieved just by sweating the NHS assets, as it were. For important conditions—the glioblastomas, pancreatic cancers and ovarian and oesophageal cancers—we need to continue to shift the frontier of research in order to produce those benefits.
The research and life sciences environment in this country continues to be hugely important. We are a bit of an outlier as a country in that of our non-commercial cancer research, two-thirds is funded by charities and slightly less than one-third by government. That is a lower proportion than for other major conditions and a lower proportion than is seen in other countries. So it is vital that we think about the entire research infrastructure and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, briefly alluded to, we cannot be blind to the pressures on our brilliant British universities, which have done so much. However, in order to sustain that, we are going to have to, through the broader set of approaches that the Government take, make sure that they have the resourcing to do that.
We are not going to get to the goals in the new cancer plan without further progress on some of the cancers of unmet need through the research enterprise, but it is also the case that there are several things inside the NHS that have got to work, and I suspect that my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, will shortly talk about the pressures on primary care, given that that represents the first point of contact for most cancer patients.
It is the case, of course, that, whereas the share of NHS resources going on primary medical care increased between 2015 and 2020, it has since fallen back. I am anticipating that the Minister may say that the Government do not think that spending-share targets are a good way of measuring these things: that is certainly their position on mental health, although it appears not to be their position when it comes to pharmaceutical spending, where there is a novel commitment that we will spend an extra 0.3% of GDP on our medicines pricing, linked to the deal done with the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, for primary care and mental health, apparently that logic does not apply.
We will want to really understand how we make the primary care element of the NHS robust over the coming 10 years. We want to understand the referral thresholds. The reality is that about 22% of cancers are diagnosed in patients from a GP referral on a non-cancer referral pathway, not the urgent suspected cancer pathway, so we need to make sure that the new GP contract, which incentivises a 25% reduction in referrals, is not cutting across the referrals that we need to detect cancer early, including in the specialities that are covered by the scheme—gastroenterology, gynaecology and urology. The NICE referral pathway, NG12, needs a refresh to make sure that people are getting referred appropriately and that the filtration is not artificially stopping people from getting checked up as they should be.
The Government are to be commended on the expansion of the community diagnostic centres—that is an excellent model, and we need more of them. There is capex and other support to do it. That is good. The lung health check programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, referred, has been a brilliant success. The long-term plan in 2019 gave us the rollout for that. More than 2.5 million people have been invited. As she said, it has produced the extraordinary result that 76% of people getting a lung cancer diagnosis through that lung health check do so at stage 1 or stage 2. That is the kind of stage shift we are looking for overall, achieved through that novel programme. As she also rightly said, it has, unlike most other screening programmes, produced another extraordinary result: poorer people are more likely to get an early diagnosis through that screening programme than better-off people. That is a direct impact on health inequalities that we do not see elsewhere.
Those kinds of models are hugely important. We need to see continued innovation in that area. If we pull all these pieces together—the resourcing, continued research and the focus on what has and has not worked in the NHS—I see no reason why we cannot continue to make really significant progress on cancer over the decade ahead.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
My Lords, like many before me, I thank my noble friend Lord Patel for securing this debate and other noble Lords for the excellent contributions that have been made so far. I beg your Lordships’ indulgence—my comments are of a more personal nature than some of the others we have heard. I hope that noble Lords will accept that. The themes and targets in the cancer plan are among the many things I will touch on in my more personal remarks.
I want to focus on clinical trials, one of the great engines of medical progress. They underpin the medicines that extend lives, relieve suffering, and in many cases deliver cures that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. They also support the UK’s ambition to be a global leader in clinical research and can be an engine for much-needed economic growth in our country.
But today I draw attention to a group of patients for whom the current clinical trial system does not really work properly: those who are diagnosed with life-limiting conditions and for whom time is short. I know that rare cancers are for the first time mentioned in the cancer plan. I also know that there is a significant commitment to clinical trials. I want to make certain that those who have rare cancers that are diagnosed late have access to those clinical trials. For those individuals, time is not abstract—it is measured in months, not years—and it is about the quality of life, not just the length of it. Our trial infrastructure is not really built for that reality. Normally, you have to fail standard treatments and then navigate complex rules in order to participate in any of the trials.
As I speak today, I remember our much-missed colleague Baroness Margaret McDonagh. She was my great friend, and watching her die from glioblastoma, a rare and devastatingly aggressive cancer, brought home to me the reality of what a rapidly progressing, life-limiting illness can be. It exposed the gap between the urgency faced by patients and their families and the pace at which our systems operate.
The brutal truth is that a patient diagnosed with glioblastoma today will, in almost all cases, be offered the same treatment, delivering the same average expectancy of nine months, as they were offered 40 years ago. That stasis cannot be explained by lack of scientific promise, because we have seen extraordinary advances in medicines, diagnostics and data in that time. Yet far too few of the solutions reach patients with the most aggressive and rare cancers.
Since Margaret’s death, her sister Siobhain McDonagh and her outstanding clinician, Dr Paul Mulholland, based in UCLH, have worked tirelessly to improve outcomes for glioblastoma patients, raising funds for trials when the NHS has not been able to pay for them, championing research and repeatedly confronting the many barriers that stand in the way of progress. Their experience shows a culture stacked against urgency and innovation, with long lead-in times for decisions, inertia, caution and conservatism in the system, slow processes and obstacles that deter clinicians from pushing the frontier of treatment and offering patients new and innovative treatments.
Dr Mulholland has been running immunotherapy trials using medicines that have transformed outcomes in other cancers to test whether they can help with glioblastoma too. Immunotherapy, as many noble Lords know much more than me, works by triggering the body’s own immune system to fight cancer, and it has transformed outcomes in conditions once considered untreatable. Dr Mulholland is trialling a new approach in which some glioblastoma patients receive immunotherapy before tumour removal, when their body is at its strongest, to see if that produces better outcomes. One patient who has been widely reported in the press, Ben Trotman, who was part of that trial, has lived for more than two years beyond his nine months’ diagnosis of glioblastoma, and his cancer remains under control. During that two-year period, he and his wife have had a baby, Mabel. I regard her as a miracle made possible by this innovative trial.
But such breakthroughs require patients to reach trials early enough and a system willing to test new approaches with urgency and ambition. We need to be honest about risk. Many of these patients are already dying, so why not let them, with full consent and proper safeguards, try promising new treatments where there is a scientific case to give them a go? The potential benefits for them are more time and a better life, and increased knowledge for us about what does or does not work. What greater legacy could there be than that?
I ask the Minister: what specific steps are the Government going to take under the cancer plan to ensure that the increased clinical trials are also available to those with the shortest timescales and in the most urgent period of need?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate. When I was a Minister, the noble Lord used to stand up and ask me extremely searching questions—well, they were searching questions to me—to which I did not always know the answer. Come to think of it, there are a couple of noble Lords in the House who used to do something similar: the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I used to go back to the department and ask for answers to these legitimate searching questions, but sometimes the answer was not forthcoming. So I used to press and stretch the civil servants to come back, because I had to come back and report to the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
But I started thinking for myself and looking into some of this, and the answer came down to technology. The noble Lord, Lord Drayson, has really made my speech—one of the problems with speaking at the end is that everything has been said. He is right that, two or three years ago, artificial intelligence was just starting to make an impact in certain industries. He made a very powerful point.
Time is short and I have a few things to say. I am speaking as a former Minister who looked into this matter and as a Member of Parliament to whom constituents used to come, pleading for treatment or to get assessment and diagnosis. Not knowing is a problem if you have a lump but you do not know what it is. They used to come to MPs’ surgeries, not just mine, to see if they could cut through the red tape to try to get an answer from the local NHS trust. I used to do my best to help, but it happened frequently.
As I say, I am a family man and have had two experiences of cancer. The first was my late sister, who died of pancreatic cancer. I was listening attentively to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who mentioned a spray that can detect pancreatic cancer. That was not available until relatively recently. Pancreatic cancer is a terrible disease.
The second was my late mother, who lived to quite a good age. Ovarian cancer is not always easy to detect. I was surprised as a carer that it took a while for the GP to make a referral and, once you got the referral, to secure a scan and get communication from the hospital to the patient—that is, my mother, who had dementia. In a way, she could not understand that; they should talk to the carer. I thought it was old-fashioned to write a letter to someone who could not read it rather than dealing with them directly, perhaps using artificial intelligence, via the NHS app to speed things along.
My contribution to this is that early and timely diagnosis is important to ensure that the right treatment can be given at the right time to get the best possible outcomes, especially for children and young people, whose cancers are often more aggressive and faster growing and require specialist treatment. Despite this, young cancer patients regularly report needing multiple visits to doctors before a cancer diagnosis is given. Data shows that the median time for under-18s to be diagnosed after first symptoms is 4.16 weeks; it takes longer than this for half of them. Teenagers from 15 to 18 years of age have the longest time to diagnosis—a median of 8.7 weeks. Some 60% are diagnosed as an emergency. On average, 14 different healthcare professionals are consulted.
This is further reflected in the NHS cancer patient experience surveys, which show that more than two in five children and young people, 42%, see their GPs three or four times after their cancer symptoms before being told to go to hospital. This compares to the majority of adults, 62%, seeing their GP just once. Not only does this prolong receiving a diagnosis but it can impact trust and relationships with healthcare professionals throughout treatment and after. This experience can be worse for minoritised groups. Data on time to diagnosis is not routinely monitored for children and young people nationally, despite those issues. It is crucial that a diagnostic interval measure is introduced for young cancer patients, as was committed to in the national care plan, to consistently track and improve time to diagnosis.
I have a question for another special person, the Minister, whom we are very lucky to have in your Lordships’ House—she does a fantastic job as Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, talked about sweating NHS assets, but I am not asking about that. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others referred to the Danish model. Denmark has a population of 6 million. In London the figure is 10 million, in Manchester it is 3 million and England as a whole it is 60 million. The noble Lord, Lord Drayson, made a point about artificial intelligence—he talked about economic growth, wealth creation, NHS trusts not talking to one another and scaling up our own domestic industry—and he is exactly right.
My question is not original but is about a pilot scheme to implement artificial intelligence, in order to establish best practice and set international standards of early diagnosis for all cancers but particularly those of low survivability. There are 36 integrated care boards—there were 42 in my day, but I understand that they have been condensed. Not all are the same: we have different populations, rural areas, seaside communities, post-industrial towns and metropolitan areas. We should appoint the best and the brightest from the NHS or industry to implement artificial intelligence throughout the NHS.
What does success look like and how do you measure it? I respectfully say that the best survival rates in the G7 would be a good starter, but artificial intelligence is an opportunity for the NHS to modernise its back-office administrative processes. As noble Lords have pointed out throughout this debate, there is so much good research out there that AI has to have an impact. That is not about sweating the assets but about improving the current workforce, certainly in the back office, so that they can at least communicate with those hard-to-reach populations and communities in the country.
That is my question to the Minister: can we have a pilot scheme of hand-picked individuals and integrated care boards in select areas of the country, to see whether we can introduce this to the NHS to make a difference and the world-beating healthcare system that we all want?
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to contribute to this debate, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I declare my interest: I am a practising GP just across the river, and, over the past 40 years, I have diagnosed and cared for many tens of thousands of patients with cancer. We currently use AI to help us: we use it with our e-consultation system, which can identify red flags. Together with our electronic medical records, that explodes at us and asks, “Have you thought of cancer?” We already have the brightest and the best; they are just located in general practice. As has been alluded to, I disclose that I am a former chair and president of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
I agree with many of the contributions that have already been made. In the contributions that I have made already in my short time here, I have drawn attention to the mounting pressures facing general practice and the implications for patients and the wider NHS, and I will focus briefly on that. I worry that initiatives such as the national cancer plan, which rightly place primary care at the forefront of early diagnosis and referral, are in danger of overestimating what general practice can realistically deliver in its current state for the patients we serve.
Without addressing the underlying constraints in the workforce, funding and capacity, we risk placing further pressure on a system that is already under real strain, as has been mentioned. In so doing, we may undermine the very ambitions that the plan is trying to achieve. These pressures are compounded in some areas by outdated or inadequate premises, which further restrict GPs’ ability to expand capacity and to do what is expected of us.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has repeatedly warned that general practice has not received a sufficient share of NHS funding to match rising demand. Without increased investment, the shift of care into the community will not be sustainable. The King’s Fund, which has been mentioned several times today, has highlighted a persistent structural imbalance in the NHS, with a higher proportion of funding and staff allocated to hospital services than to primary and community care.
Despite general practice being the front door of the NHS, the workforce remains heavily concentrated in hospital services. As highlighted in the Health Service Journal—HSJ—last week, the proportion of NHS doctors working as GPs has fallen significantly, from one in five a decade ago to closer to one in seven today. Less than 15% of the workforce—GPs and nurses—are now located in primary care, with 80% of the nursing and medical workforce now working in hospital settings. This cannot be right, given that evidence published over the past 70 years, both in this country and across the water, shows that placing GPs at the front door of any health service results in more accessible, higher-quality and more cost-effective care, including cancer care. Moreover, evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners shows that strengthening continuity of care—the bedrock of my profession—can reduce avoidable hospital admissions and improve cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Patients prefer continuity of care.
Recent figures published in Parliament, and highlighted in the Health Service Journal just last week, show that the share of NHS spending on general practice has fallen to about 8%—its lowest level in the past decade, down from 9% around five years ago. It always amazes me that there are currently 360 million consultations per year—GPs are about 180 million of those—for an average cost of £150 per patient per year. Noble Lords can do the maths: every man, woman and child on average consults six to seven times per year with their GP for £150. These figures reflect a long-standing structural imbalance in how care is resourced and delivered, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. To me, that raises a very clear implementation risk for the cancer plan, which relies heavily on GPs for early diagnosis and cancer pathways. Without adequate investment in primary care capacity, we will not be able to do that.
We need more GPs. Health Foundation modelling indicates that we need an additional 6,500 GPs by 2030 to meet the needs of our ageing, increasingly complex population. We need more GPs spending longer with their patients and communities to achieve the ambitions laid out in the cancer plan. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the current imbalance, whereby general practice receives a relatively small share of NHS funding while delivering a substantial proportion of patient contacts.
Delays in accessing primary care risk translating directly into delays in cancer detection, where, as we have heard, earlier diagnosis is often critical to outcomes. Ultimately, if we expect earlier cancer diagnosis to be delivered through general practice, we must ensure that general practice has the capacity to deliver it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on securing this important debate, which places emphasis on diagnostic care, research and the necessary delivery mechanisms to implement the National Cancer Plan.
I am a breast cancer survivor who was on a clinical trial—the add-aspirin double-blind trial—for five years. The result of that trial in both Britain and Ireland will be revealed next year, with the aim of showing—I hope—that taking aspirin can help in the reduction of breast cancer. That is what I hope the research will show; we will see in time.
There is no doubt that research needs meaningful government and charitable investment, which in turn requires sound management. I acknowledge those who have provided briefings for us all today, including the Institute of Cancer Research, Young Lives vs Cancer, Leukaemia UK, Breast Cancer Now and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—to name just a few. All the briefings highlight the importance of frequent and early screening, diagnostics and equitable access to more effective treatments, as well as the need to strengthen clinical trial infrastructure and create closer links between trials and clinical practice. They also highlight the importance of research and innovation, including the need to improve genomic testing in the UK by mandating faster test turnaround times and to standardise and make accessible a centralised data collection linked to other databases.
Undoubtedly, the National Cancer Plan for England sets out ambitious and necessary targets to improve cancer outcomes, which I welcome. Research is fundamental to delivering all these outcomes, but we will not hit these targets if they are not driven by the latest research. Universities are the primary delivery mechanism for this research, and they are under significant financial strain. The financial health of the universities is the litmus test for the UK’s scientific future. The key challenge is delivery, as was pointed out by Professor Kristian Helin of the ICR and in a subsequent blog by Ollie Richards, the advocacy manager for the Institute of Cancer Research.
The ambitious targets in the National Cancer Plan will not be met without cutting-edge cancer research to drive new standards of care, alongside time-saving and cost-saving efficiencies. The plan aims for 75% of people diagnosed with cancer to survive at least five years: a 25% increase on current levels. Achieving this will require more than incremental gains; it will depend on better treatments, more precise targeting of therapies and a deeper understanding of cancer biology, all of which is rooted in research. At the time of my diagnosis eight years ago, I was told that they were able to diagnose the content of a tumour and direct the treatment to the tumour: that was the difference and the improvement. It encouraged me to go on my treatment plan.
The ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 cannot be achieved through awareness of existing screening alone. It will require new screening approaches, more sensitive diagnostics, and improved risk stratification—again, all driven by research. This work is already under way at the Institute of Cancer Research at the Royal Marsden, and there is an exploration of saliva tests to assess the genetic risk of prostate cancer, showing that, for some men, it can outperform the current PSA test.
The National Cancer Plan includes targets on diagnosis and treatment times and an additional 9.5 million diagnostic tests by 2029, but volume alone is insufficient. Faster pathways depend on innovation and technologies that streamline diagnosis and reduce treatment burden. Therefore, research is critical here. Dr Matthew Blackledge’s quickDWI project is developing a five-minute MRI scan with the potential of transforming the patient experience, which frees up NHS capacity. Similarly, the PACE-B trial at the Royal Marsden and ICR demonstrated that higher-dose radiotherapy can cut treatment time by up to 75% for some prostate cancer patients. We cannot ignore the importance of early-stage research and discovery science helping to answer key biological questions. It is often the least visible and most vulnerable part of the system—a concern increasingly voiced across the sector in recent months.
The bottom line is that cancer research does not happen in a vacuum. It depends on sustained investment, policy stability and access to the best talent. If we want research to deliver the National Cancer Plan’s ambitions on survival, early diagnosis and faster treatment, all of us—Parliament, the Government, research institutions and clinical practitioners—have to ensure that the system that underpins it is strong enough to deliver what the National Cancer Plan requires. In this respect, I ask my noble friend the Minister what plans the Government have to do just that. I welcome the National Cancer Plan and I want to see it implemented, but I want to see how it will be implemented and the resources revealed to do just that: to ensure that this National Cancer Plan is capable of implementation with sufficient resources in research and innovation and within the universities.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for giving us the opportunity to talk about cancer today, because I am a very lucky woman: like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I am a cancer survivor. My cancer was picked up by routine screening, so I am just as much of a fan as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, of routine screening.
I am delighted to be able to talk about the National Cancer Plan, which covers improvements in targets for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research. Yet, of course, all these are underpinned by a sufficient, properly trained workforce—with ongoing CPD, since the science is constantly changing. The Government have promised the NHS workforce plan by this spring, yet, despite the sunshine outside, for the Government, spring has not yet quite sprung. Will the Minister be able to confirm when we will get it, and can she say whether it will deal with not just clinicians but technicians, and not just initial training but a reliable system of CPD to keep practitioners up to date, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has also requested?
There are many areas where efficient workforce planning is vital for achievement of not just the cancer plan but the 10-year health plan, including, as it does, moving from hospital to community, and many examples have been raised by speakers today.
A couple of hours ago, I raised an Oral Question about the issue of newly qualified midwives being without a post despite the issues of unsafe staffing levels in maternity services. In Wales, paramedic students are being told there are no posts for them in Wales when they qualify; they will have to go and work somewhere else. The number of posts for health visitors has been halved over 10 years, leading to some having enormous case loads, which were highlighted in the media this week. These are just a few examples of poor workforce planning in the general NHS workforce, but I recognise that this is not easy.
There are of course many examples of shortages in the cancer workforce, including of GPs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, just told us. They are all vital to early diagnosis, which we know leads to better outcomes. Yet the role of some groups is underestimated: last week, I went to my local dentist for a check-up; she checked me for oral cancer, and for any swellings in the lymph nodes in my neck, which might indicate cancer. Thousands of people cannot get an NHS dentist and cannot afford to pay, as I did, and therefore do not get these cancer checks, as well as having their teeth fall out. Dentists also part of the cancer workforce.
The Government plan for 28 more radiotherapy machines, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, said—are probably enough only to replace the outdated ones. My party has proposed that the ambition should be more like 200, but we are aware that this would have to go alongside training more technicians. Is there a plan to do so across the health service?
This brings me to diagnosis and the question of investment in haematology, pathology and several other sectors which noble Lords have mentioned. Many years ago, I worked as a cytologist in the pathology lab of a major cancer hospital in Manchester. I was screening cervical smears for cancer and pre-cancer cells so that patients could have further examination and timely treatment. Since then, productivity has vastly improved with mechanisation of slide preparation and AI-assisted interpretation of samples. There is even more potential for this sort of improved productivity today, so that patients can get their results quickly and proceed to treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, talked about the importance of doing this kind of investment when we have a cash shortage.
However, while this requires some investment, it is certainly cost-effective, as indicated by many studies. Waiting for test results is very stressful for patients—as I am sure has been experienced by several noble Lords at some points in their lives—and can be dangerous, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. Consultants need these test results to aid early diagnosis, but most areas are unfortunately well behind the targets.
Turning to prevention, there are three major areas I will mention. First, there is a long list of cancers that could be prevented by lifestyle changes. Smoking tobacco has long been the most common cause of cancer, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for her speech on this. Over recent years we have had legislation which has helped to reduce smoking and secondary smoking, the most recent of which was the Tobacco and Vapes Bill which finally went through your Lordships’ House yesterday. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on this legislation, which will certainly protect young people from taking up smoking and increase the opportunity for smokers who wish to quit to get help, thereby reducing their risk of getting lung and mouth cancer.
However, it is vital that community-based stop-smoking services have sufficient resources to be able to offer the full range of help. For example, most do not have the funding to afford prescriptions for the drugs which are proven to help smokers for whom other methods have failed. Vapes have proved to be a very effective quitting tool and should be widely available as such, including on prescription. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken powers to restrict the opportunity of manufacturers to attract, through advertising and marketing, children and non-smokers to start vaping, and I look forward to the regulations to put these into practice. We do not yet have enough information about any long-term dangers of vaping, especially on young and developing lungs.
The second lifestyle factor is diet. In addition to diabetes and musculoskeletal problems associated with overweight, there is a very long list of cancers caused by bad diet and obesity. In response to an inquiry in your Lordships’ House in 2024, which I had the honour to chair, the Government have put a number of our recommendations in place—thank you very much—but a great deal more needs to be done, and more quickly. The effect on the economy of the lost years of life and the lost working years due to illness caused by obesity has been well documented. It is tempting for some to suggest that it is all down to willpower, but that is not the case. We make our decisions on diet in an obesogenic environment, and many people cannot afford a healthy diet, so they are susceptible to a whole list of cancers. My committee proposed a comprehensive cross-government, long-term strategy to improve the nation’s diet.
Last year, the Government set up a national food strategy led by Defra, but we are not hearing much about it. It should cover a whole raft of government departments, so can the Minister say how her department is contributing to that? It really affects the budget of the NHS in the long term. Legislation on healthy food is undoubtedly required, and the Government will no doubt soon hear proposals for a healthy food Bill in the debate on the King’s Speech.
Having formerly worked in the area of cervical cancer, I was thrilled when a vaccine against the human papillomavirus was developed. It is offered free to teenagers as part of the school-based vaccination programme. As chair of your Lordships’ current ad hoc committee on childhood vaccination rates in England, I have heard evidence that the uptake of the HPV vaccine has fallen from 90% when it was first offered to only 72% now, and this puts the Government’s objective of eliminating cervical cancer by 2040 in great danger—the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, mentioned that. Therefore, what is the Minister’s department doing about that, and how is she working with the Department for Education to improve the situation? I am hearing that some schools are refusing to work with the vaccination services offered to their pupils, and some find getting parental consent very time-consuming. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that when she has spoken to her colleague.
Finally, on research, as I mentioned, vaccines have already been developed to prevent or treat cancer, and there will be more. Only yesterday, the media reported a vaccine that considerably extends the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. This raises the question as to what the Government are doing to enable more of this sort of work and the clinical trials that are basic to it, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Paul. Clinical trials are absolutely vital in order to bring treatments to patients, and we need to make them easier.
I served on another of your Lordships’ committees—the Science and Technology Committee—with the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, who mentioned some of the findings of one of its most recent reports. But, in addition to the report on the difficulties of scaling up small businesses in this country, including life science businesses and other scientific businesses, the committee wrote an urgent letter to the Secretary of State for Health about the missed opportunity of attracting more researchers from the United States to come here if they are unhappy with the situation there. I am hearing that it would cost an American researcher £18,000 to come with a spouse and one child, to get visas and to pay the NHS charge in advance. This is more of a barrier than an encouragement. The committee heard that other countries are being much more opportunistic than us on this matter. Why are we lagging behind, when other countries have managed to strengthen their cancer research workforce? We need to get good people from wherever they are willing to come to us. Let us stop pussyfooting around and get on with it.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. If I have learned one thing during my time in the House of Lords, it is that any pronouncement emanating from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, should be listened to with the utmost care and attention. I therefore say at the outset that his analysis of where we stand as a country in our ability to diagnose and treat cancer in all its forms can surely not be bettered. We have since heard some excellent speeches from around the Room, which have usefully developed the messages that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, so capably articulated.
Our starting point, as all others have said, must be the Government’s recently published national cancer plan, which I for one found an inspiring read. I very much welcome the ambitions set out in it, particularly because they are not only outcome-based but based on outcomes that are in many cases pretty challenging to achieve. That has to be the right approach, but every challenging target carries with it an implicit invitation to the wider world to hold the system to account for its delivery. With the cancer plan, that is not entirely a straightforward matter.
The ambitions in the plan are, quite rightly, many. They cover not only the desired ends but the means. We can measure success, or the lack of it, in the traditional way, by reference to the waiting time standards, and those are extremely important, but when we look at some of the other boxes that the plan sets out to tick—for example, quality of life improvements; reducing regional inequalities, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised; reducing inequalities for children and young people; as well as such things as fostering a whole-society approach to prevention—we begin to see how many areas there are to be monitored and for which credible metrics will need to be devised.
I was glad to see that the Government have thought about this in the area of diagnostics, which will of course be crucial to the success of the plan. The four new key metrics that have been designed to track improvements in early-stage cancer diagnosis are excellent but, as the plan sets out, there is a whole set of measures on which such improvements will themselves depend: for instance, the expansion and wider take-up of screening; the enhancing of the NHS app and getting people to use it; and the general speeding up of the patient pathway.
As the plan concedes, quite refreshingly, a lot will also depend on basic improvements in administrative efficiency across the NHS, which, I am afraid, has been a depressingly difficult nut to crack in a number of areas. Let us not forget that put together, these ambitions, if they are to be met to their fullest degree, will require a focus on that rather elusive concept, championed so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in the last Labour Government, of quality—quality of process, quality of care and quality of outcomes. So it is good news that the National Quality Board will be taking it as part of its remit to adopt what the plan calls a
“more rigorous and evidence-based approach to quality improvement”.
Much will also depend, though, on local commissioners and providers monitoring their own performance and being swift to pounce on system weaknesses where these appear. For that, they will need the tools to do the job, chief among which are data and modern IT to deliver it. There are NHS trusts that are still dependent on slow and outdated software which, from a manager’s point of view, makes life extremely frustrating. The chief executive of the King’s Fund, Sarah Woolnough, was right to point out that many hospitals still cannot share imaging or pathology results in a timely way for that very reason. I hope the Government have this problem within their sights: it is important.
After all the consultation that took place on the cancer plan, which was considerable, it was not surprising to see that criticism of the plan from around the health community has been almost entirely of a constructive nature. The questions that have been posed have largely centred on the obvious challenges around delivery.
The King’s Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, to take just four examples, have expressed very similar anxieties, many but not all of which can be placed under the broad heading of “resources”.
The main anxiety, which I share, and which is shared by other noble Lords today, is that of human resources. There is a section of the cancer plan which addresses workforce issues, but it frankly put me off by being overly political, which was not at all necessary. The Government seem determined to rubbish the long-term workforce plan published by the previous Government, but I remind the Minister that it was a plan that, like the cancer plan, was widely consulted upon and widely welcomed when it came out. It most certainly did not focus simply on expanding workforce numbers but went into detail on where in the system more staff were needed, along with their skills and training, including continuing professional development. It also talked about clinical leadership, which I did not see much referred to in the cancer plan.
The elephant in the room is the demand curve. Doing better on prevention and early diagnosis will take cost out of the system, but with the best will in the world, the effects will not be felt for a number of years. Meanwhile, the demand for cancer services will continue to rise, as it has done inexorably over recent years. As noble Lords have said, our cancer outcomes as a country are nothing like as good as they should be. Nevertheless, and contrary to what you might think reading the cancer plan, the Government of which I was a member made considerable progress in cancer care and treatment. Mortality in many of the major cancers fell significantly, despite rising incidence.
However, as we know, the NHS struggled to meet its targets because of constraints around capacity. I very much welcome the sections of the plan that address capacity in diagnostics, one of the main areas in which the NHS has struggled, but at the same time, we are asked to accept that training and better equipment will in due course reduce the need to recruit staff. I am willing to believe that, but only up to a point. The efficiencies that the Government rightly want to see cannot and will not be delivered overnight or in short order.
Further down the patient pathway, we will need more clinical and medical oncologists, and we will need to train them. The Government have already pledged to create several thousand more specialty training places, but following the recent breakdown of negotiations with the BMA, we now learn that these places will not be on offer until next year at the earliest, which is not a very encouraging start to the cancer plan’s workforce ambitions.
Therefore, delivery at pace is a concern. That applies to another area: research and innovation. We have made progress in the setting up time for clinical trials, as others have said, and I welcome the Government’s plan for a clinical trials accelerator. The expansion of genomic science and facilities such as the UK Biobank have enabled major advances over the past 15 years, but again, it is about people. Our homegrown pipeline of research graduates is simply not going to be sufficient for our national needs. For the UK to remain competitive, we have to keep attracting international talent into our laboratories, and the costs associated with this are far higher than in other developed countries.
Of course, that is only part of the challenge. To have an effect on cancer outcomes—which is in the end what matters—the fruits of research need to be accessed by NHS patients. The National Healthtech Access Programme is a welcome concept, but to achieve success, it must spread proven new technologies beyond the bounds of our major teaching hospitals and somehow overcome the ingrained resistance towards innovation on the part of the wider NHS. How will it do that?
The National Cancer Plan for England is an excellent document, but because of that, it is a complex jigsaw with many pieces. For the Government’s ambitions around cancer to be achieved, all those jigsaw pieces must be put in the right places and seamlessly joined up. For that to happen, the system as a whole must contain the right accountability mechanisms to ensure delivery over a period of years. I look forward to seeing how those delivery and accountability mechanisms take shape over the course of the coming months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this excellent debate. I thank him for bringing his considerable expertise and careful consideration—as he always does, as other noble Lords have said—to these matters. He has assembled a pretty daunting selection of noble Lords, for which I am also grateful.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have been incredibly well informed, personally felt and thoughtful. There is much that I will share and examine further with my ministerial colleagues. Sharon Hodgson, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, is driving forward the implementation of the cancer plan. To pick up the specific point about GPs, I note that Stephen Kinnock, the Minister for Care, is the responsible Minister for that area; I will raise the searching comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, with him.
I appreciate how personal and affecting the debate is for so many—if not everybody—whether they have said it or not, either directly or indirectly. That has inspired us much. By using the word “inspired”, I am quoting the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I was delighted to hear him talk about the cancer plan as an “inspiring read”—he really should review books—and “excellent”. The noble Earl’s assessment of it being a jigsaw is absolutely spot on, and that has been acknowledged throughout.
I will do my best to respond to a number of points. I suspect that I will not manage to do so entirely, but I hope noble Lords will be assured that their comments and questions will be taken up.
For me and noble Lords here today, strategy is one thing but implementation is the main thing. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Bloomfield, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others challenged the point about implementation, so I will speak briefly about that. There will be a reformed national cancer board. It will be accountable for delivery and include cancer experts. It will track progress, update Ministers and monitor the impact, including—following the points raised by my noble friend Lady Nargund—by dealing with inequalities; that will be key in its monitoring. Updates will be published annually on the national cancer plan’s progress. I look forward to more challenge and engagement from noble Lords in relation to that.
On outcomes, as we have heard, the best way is to diagnose and to treat early to improve outcomes, which is why the cancer plan sets an ambitious goal to meet all cancer waiting times standards by 2029. We are already making strides towards this goal—not least by reducing the NHS waiting list overall by 405,000 since July 2024—but we have a very long way to go in this area of cancer.
The point about inequalities—whether we are talking about race, deprived communities or any other significant factor—came up so much, and rightly so. The noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern, Lady Bottomley and Lady Nargund, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, among others, referred to this. As was said, the improvement of care for deprived, disadvantaged or less equal communities will be monitored through the NHS cancer waiting time standards. Data is published at integrated care board and provider level, and the NHSE acute provider table of all 134 providers supports this transparency. It is about getting attention to where it is needed most.
The cancer plan’s central ambition is to transform survival rates, committing to 75% of patients diagnosed from 2035 being cancer-free or living well within five years. What an ambition that will be to achieve. It will be the fastest rate of improvement in cancer outcomes this century and lead to an additional 320,000 lives saved over the course of this plan—and of course, for every life saved, many more are affected.
On diagnostics, one way in which we can achieve our ambitions is by improving cancer diagnosis in the community—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke to this point. As noble Lords have acknowledged, last week we announced plans to open four new community diagnostic centres in England over the next year, while also announcing that a further 32 of the 170 CDCs that are currently providing valuable diagnostic capacity will be expanded and enhanced. They are a major move towards a neighbourhood health service.
By extending new capacity—which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—we are also optimising our cancer screening programmes to catch it earlier. I make particular reference to HPV, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. From this year, young people who missed out on the vaccination at school can have it administered from a pharmacy. That is to help us move to the elimination of cervical cancer by 2040. I really welcome that. It is about recognising that some people have missed out and providing the service easily and locally in the trusted pharmacy.
My noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to the national lung cancer screening programme. This will be fully rolled out by 2030, inviting more than 6 million people and identifying at least 23,000 cancers at an earlier stage. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the point that those who are more disadvantaged are benefiting from this to a greater degree. Disadvantage is being matched with greater and disproportionate—as in the right amount of—care and attention, and I hope we will see more of that.
On the matter of treatment, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, that we will be taking a new approach: more patients will be able to access specialist training centres; by 2028 the NHS app will be the front door for managing our healthcare, and it will have a particular resonance for cancer care; and by 2035 we will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the all-important single patient record, which will provide the kind of joining up that noble Lords have referred to.
I turn to the important matter of workforce, which was referred to by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I share the frustration of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the effect of industrial action on the service to patients and the kind of progress that we seek to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, almost asked me, “When is spring?”, and my noble friend Lady Blake whispered, “It’s still quite cold outside”. But there is indeed to be the publication of the 10-year workforce plan, which will set out a multi-disciplinary approach and will pay greater attention to the role of the workforce. I very much look forward to it supporting this cancer plan, as well as others.
My noble friend Lady Rafferty asked about the training of clinical staff. We will establish new national training standards for surgeons, in particular surgeons in robotic surgery. Over the first three years of the cancer plan, we seek to create some 5,000 learning and training opportunities for people per year in cancer-critical roles. That shows its importance in our approach.
As noble Lords have said, we have to take steps to seize and embrace research breakthrough. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, will take this back, but Cancer Research UK has rightly pointed out that, if we shift the dial on outcomes, that requires us to target rarer cancers, which noble Lords have referred to, where progress has often been slow. As your Lordships will know, we are fully implementing the Rare Cancers Act and are glad to do so. That will make it easier for patients to take part in cutting-edge clinical trials, the importance of which my noble friend Lady Paul spoke to. I can tell my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will appoint a national specialty lead who will advocate for rare cancer patients and oversee the delivery of research in England.
A new cancer trials accelerator will increase the speed and reach of trials. Up to 10,000 personalised cancer vaccine doses will be delivered through clinical trials by 2030. To respond to my noble friend Lady Paul, the Government have committed to reducing the set-up time for clinical trials to under 150 days, to earn the UK the real honour and practicality of being a world leader. We will streamline the implementation of proven technology, as well as boosting access via our new national healthtech access programme.
Just as we are targeting rarer cancers, we will also target specific groups—to which I have already referred—to ensure greater progress. That requires the use of data and data collection, which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke about. The national cancer plan includes, for example, real-time pathway analytics, streamlined cancer metrics to expose unwanted variation, which is absolutely crucial, and providing trusts and cancer alliances with more granular and actionable data. Without data we cannot target where we need to go.
As noble Lords know, April is not just part of spring; it also marks the publication, last week, of our renewed women’s health strategy, in which we set out actions to expand genomic testing for those with a lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancers. We will also look to improve the detection of endometrial cancer. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Nargund, who spoke to the important matter of gynae cancers.
On linking women’s health to AI, I hope noble Lords will recall that we now have the EDITH—Early Detection using Information Technology in Health—trial, which will see nearly 700,000 women take part in a world-leading trial to test whether AI can increase the number of cancers detected in the national breast screening programme. To the point on workforce, this will also mean that the radiographers will be key, but we will need not two but one for each case—that is how we can harness AI. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, about the great improvements that AI can make, including in back-office functions. My noble friend Lord Drayson also spoke to the importance of harnessing the benefits of AI, and I assure noble Lords that we will continue to do that.
I will make a couple of final comments on innovation, productivity and funding, but, before I do, I will comment on prevention. Noble Lords have referred to this. We will stop as many cancers as we can by—these are just examples—cracking down on illegal underage sunbed use, eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination, tackling obesity and creating the world’s first smoke-free generation. I am grateful to noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Walmsley, for welcoming the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. It is a step change in our work and will save thousands of lives.
On productivity, and on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we estimate that we will see up to a 21% gain in productivity as we invest in digital and robotic automation-enabled histopathology—pronouncing that is where I need the noble Lord, although it is also my writing—pathways, with further capability enhancement by AI. So we are not standing still on productivity and workforce, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the importance of bringing together strategies and approaches. We will achieve in the cancer plan only by doing that. The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of palliative care.
On funding and resources—the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised this—there are significant commitments, and I will mention just some of them: £10 million a year for children and young people to be able to access their treatment without financial penalty; £200 million for cancer alliances to improve performance; and £2.3 billion in diagnostics, which should deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029. I think that gives a sense of our commitment.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about resourcing for innovation. I assure my noble friend that we are working with education colleagues in the way that she asked, and there will also be a plan in place, which we are developing, for how we resource innovation. I am grateful for her comments.
This was such a rich debate. I feel I have picked out themes, and I will reflect, as will my ministerial colleagues, on the very real and informed points that noble Lords have made. The thing I did sense is that we all want this national cancer plan to work. I look forward to continued scrutiny, contribution and expertise from noble Lords. Lastly, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. She might reflect on some of the other points that she was not able to answer, such as the one on isotopes, which is very important. We have debated that before. One or two noble Lords quite rightly mentioned children’s cancers, which the report mentions very thinly. There is an issue with children’s cancers, including the suggestion that a well-run, efficient children’s cancer unit is under threat of being shut down. That cannot be so, and it needs to be investigated.
Aside from that, I thank all noble Lords. The Minister is quite right: there is a daunting array of them, even to me, and I have six double-sided pages of the important contributions made. If I were to summarise, your Lordships would not like me because they would be here for a long while, so I will not. Each and every contribution was brilliant. I thank noble Lords not just for turning up but for making such a good contribution. To me, the summary of it was that there were constructive, helpful comments to help this national plan, which on the whole each and every speaker welcomed. They were not criticising it overtly—apart from me—and I am sorry that I teased them at the beginning.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a comment about me and the way I have engaged with him over time in debates. The problem is that, with his silken charm, you never know whether he is being kind to you or about to put a dagger in you. But it is always delightful to listen to him, and he made some important points, again in a helpful way. I hope we will soon see the workforce plan. It is absolutely crucial to have a workforce plan focusing on cancers again to deliver the workforce we require for all the things we want to do. I thank all noble Lords, and I thank the Minister very much. I agree with the comment made by one Member that we are lucky to have her as a Minister.
House of Lords
Midwives: Graduate Guarantee
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving the graduate guarantee for newly qualified midwives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the graduate guarantee creates additional temporary registered midwife roles and enables newly qualified midwives to apply to join the NHS workforce. This supports the transition from education to employment. Since September, over 850 of these roles have been created, backed by £8 million. This includes part-time and full-time jobs. NHS England is working closely with universities and employers to align graduate numbers with vacancies through improved workforce planning, enhanced support for students and co-ordinated local recruitment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The graduate guarantee is very welcome but, already, 31% of newly qualified midwives do not have a job or are on fixed-term contracts. First, how will the Government ensure that workforce planning is aligned to the number of posts available so that the skills of newly qualified cohorts are not wasted? Secondly, given the concerns about unsafe workloads in midwifery and maternity services, how will midwives have the time to discuss with their clients health issues such as diet and vaccination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On the second point, the noble Baroness is quite right: it is important that midwives have that time. That is what we anticipate will be the case—I refer her to the forthcoming workforce plan, which will improve the situation. With regard to the position that the noble Baroness describes, I agree that this needs sorting out, and I recognise the figures that she has shared. That is why we have brought in the graduate guarantee scheme—so that we can get people from their training and education into the NHS and can ensure that midwives are recruited on the basis of looking to the future rather than of the existing headcount. So we are future-proofing this.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, the graduate guarantee applies also to nurses but, sadly, the provision is quite patchy. What steps are the Government taking to support employers to recruit newly qualified nurses?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Through NHS England’s student movement tool, forecasting on the workforce and national analysis are being undertaken to assess the areas of risk—my noble friend is right to raise those concerns. That is shared with NHS England’s regional teams so that they can manage and monitor workforce positions directly with providers.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the comments made by the Minister. However, she will be aware that, as well as having a shortage of midwives in place—and we have seen the terrible effects of poor service delivery in antenatal and postnatal care—we have a significant shortage of health visitors, who give advice regarding immunisations, development, feeding and so forth. Some of those health visitors have caseloads of up to 1,000 families. That is not sustainable and, frankly, is quite dangerous. What are the Government going to do to address this?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I refer to the forthcoming 10-year health and care workforce plan, which will take a multidisciplinary approach. I certainly share the noble Baroness’s views about the value of health visitors. As we move services into the community and develop the neighbourhood health service, that will require the greater use of roles such as health visitors. Ultimately, this is a local matter about local employment of staff to meet local need.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, given the concerns about unsafe workloads in maternity services, how do the Government justify a situation where qualified midwives are available but not being brought into permanent roles?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is the very reason why we have brought in this guarantee, because it provides an immediate route into employment for those who are newly qualified. A number of things about that are important, including reducing the risk of graduates leaving the profession because they cannot find jobs. The reason why there are an additional 850 time-limited or temporary roles is to get people in under existing budgets but also to get staff to enter the workforce where there are not immediately permanent vacancies. It is a strong way to address the point that the noble Baroness raises.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we have two situations. One is that 31% of newly qualified midwives have been unable to secure posts; the other is that we have well-documented shortages. The Minister talked about the graduate guarantee, but are there any other initiatives available to midwives and nurses who may wish to take up these jobs? Other noble Lords have talked about the number of hours that midwives have to work. How do we make sure that we retain existing midwives so that some are not leaving by one door as others are coming in by another?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I was about to answer the noble Lord’s first question by talking about retention and then he helpfully raised retention. Retention rates for existing midwives are improving, as is the number of midwives. That includes a mentoring scheme, strengthening advice and support on pensions, flexible retirement options, and publication of menopause policies and guidance to support midwives to stay in work. We also have unit-based retention leads to focus on this and provide support to midwives. I think that is a really important initiative.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, given that the National Health Service is always short of nurses and midwives, do the Government have any plans to bring in any overseas nurses and midwives to fill the jobs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The issue is more a misalignment of numbers than a straightforward shortage, as the number of midwives has increased. There was a 2.6% increase in January 2026 compared to the year before, so the trajectory is good. The misalignment, as I have explained, is that we are dealing with a situation where midwives are being trained but they cannot get jobs. That is what we have to bring together and what we are doing through the graduate guarantee scheme.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness share my concern that there is an increasing trend towards encouraging women to give birth in large hospital centres further from their homes and does she agree that an increase in midwives—as well as in obs and gynae professionals of all sorts—would enable us to behave more like France and Germany do, for example, and aim for units of between 2,000 and 4,000 births a year?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Obviously, what matter most are patient safety and patient satisfaction, and I am very much looking forward to the independent report from my noble friend Lady Amos in this regard, because she is focusing on that. I am sure that she will consider the best place. I cannot comment on whether the noble and learned Baroness’s assertion will be the best option here, but there was a separate call for evidence under the workforce plan so that we could hear directly from maternity and neonatal staff.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that while patient safety is, of course, the primary thing, there is also a very strong obligation to ensure that promises made to young people going in for training are fulfilled? We are aware of these challenges in Wales. Surely there needs to be a more integrated approach to workforce planning to ensure that in future we do not get this embarrassing situation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord. I know he will understand that I can refer only to England in this context, but I take his point about Wales. I mentioned earlier that this situation very much needs sorting out and that is what we are doing. We are working closely with employers and universities. We are improving workforce planning, enhancing support for students and co-ordinating more local recruitment activity. As I have outlined, plenty of work has been undertaken and I am sure we will continue to monitor and do more.
Electricity: Domestic Pricing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCabe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the effect of the marginal pricing structure on the cost of electricity for domestic consumers.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for working families and businesses is at the heart of the Government’s sprint toward homegrown clean energy. Marginal cost pricing has historically incentivised the cheapest forms of energy to provide as much power as possible. That worked well when the competition was between fossil fuel producers, but less well when there are many cheaper bids from renewable sources for power supply but still the price can be set by more expensive and volatile gas. Accelerating the development of renewable generation, as we are now through clean power 2030, will progressively reduce to a residuum the amount of time that gas sets the price.
Lord McCabe (Lab)
I am grateful for that Answer and I welcome the direction of travel on energy security and price stability, but do we not need to work harder and faster to decouple gas from electricity prices? Is it not true that gas accounts for about 30% of electricity generating but that the effect of gas on the price mechanism is responsible for the huge bills landing on households and businesses up and down the country?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Although gas accounts for only 30% or so of the market, at the moment it sets the price over 60% of the time with marginal cost pricing arrangements. It is right that we need to go faster and further. Indeed, today the Government have announced plans, among many other things, to ensure that the element of the renewable input into the system—on renewables obligations rather than fixed-price contracts for difference—can be moved over to that latter category as soon as possible, thereby bearing down on the amount of time that gas sets the price in the market.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we cannot afford continued fossil fuel dependency. We welcome the move from legacy contracts to cheaper ones. Indeed, my party proposed similar over a year ago. I support the Greenpeace Power Shift RAB model to remove gas, the most expensive component, from the market. Are Ministers still looking at these proposals, and will they take them forward? If not, why not? Together these proposals fall short, and that is my worry here. Despite the way they have been trailed, they will not deliver the savings we require.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are looking actively at many different ways of going further and faster as far as the green energy revolution is concerned. Indeed, they are actively looking at the Greenpeace and Stonehaven report on not only delinking but strategic reserves for gas in future. My personal view is that what they are proposing is a little early in the cycle but, nevertheless, could be an important element later on, in how the system stabilises itself once it is mainly renewables and low carbon.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Is the quickest way to get energy prices down not to cut some of the rip-off taxes that the Government impose? How does imposing an extra windfall tax help?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Imposing an extra windfall tax, on those elements of the system that are within the renewables orbit but outside the CfD arrangements, takes away the excess profits that those elements make as a result of being aligned with gas in charging those volatile prices. So it is a very sensible thing to do, to make sure that excess profits are not taken from consumers but instead reside with them as lower prices.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
To follow up on that, can the Minister explain how a windfall tax paid to the Treasury ends up reducing people’s bills?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The effect of the windfall tax is, essentially, to start returning some of those excessive bill contributions back to bill payers so that their overall bills are less than they otherwise would be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Denmark—where renewables, on which Denmark excels, are highly developed—is the largest producer of oil and gas in the European Union? We will continue to need fossil fuels, in addition to renewables, going forward.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The reference that the noble Baroness makes to Denmark is an interesting one, inasmuch as the Danish system is wholly integrated between renewables, heat and power of different kinds—particularly district heating and various such things, which can be used in conjunction with other forms of energy to provide a balanced overall system. It is true that Denmark continues to produce oil and gas but also that Denmark is, along with the UK, looking at methods of making sure that relates to production for the future rather than exploration.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, this is one aspect of the high cost of electricity in the UK. The wider question it raises is: what plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of electricity? On the electrification of the energy mix of the future, which is among the many answers that my noble friend the Minister may wish to give, do the Government need to consider bringing forward a strategic national plan with a focus on the lessons to be learned from this present crisis?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question, because he has, remarkably, just anticipated the development of the strategic spatial energy plan and a reformed national pricing delivery plan, both of which came out this morning. Both plans address exactly the longer-term balance arrangements as far as electricity is concerned, particularly how prices can be the lowest possible for the deployment of electricity and gas resources across the country.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the most effective way of bringing down household energy bills is through the energy efficiency of homes. I welcome the Government’s move to apply the future homes standard, which will bring up energy efficiency, but they are not going to implement it until 2028—before which, some 100,000 or more homes will be built inefficiently. Can the Government please bring this forward, at least to 2027?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I cannot stand here and guarantee that that move will be brought forward by one year, as he suggests. It is a very sound idea. The future homes standard, which is now in place, is instead of the net-zero low-carbon standards that should have been implemented about 15 years ago, if the previous Government had not thrown them out. We are catching back up, as far as possible, and making sure we can get that done in good order.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, by our doubling down on intermittent renewable wind and imported Chinese solar, as the Secretary of State announced this morning, does the Minister agree that while the wholesale price link to gas and electricity constitutes, as he said, only some 30% of the consumer price, the main culprits of ever-escalating industrial and domestic prices are the Government’s green levies, the taxes and the system costs, which constitute the remaining 70% and are increasing month by month? When will the Government address these costs?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Of course, the Government have addressed those costs, particularly in the recent move to take elements of the levies away from levy arrangements and into the general Exchequer. That is part of the £150 off energy bills that the Government have recently reported. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the effect of levies on prices, but I hope he will also accept that that is exactly what the Government are doing at the moment: bringing prices down for the consumer by transferring how those levies work for the future.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is good news that the Government have enabled standing charges to be reduced, but should standing charges not be got rid of completely? They are basically daylight robbery.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl treads a fine distinction between the possible daylight robbery of standing charges and the fact that some charges need to be levied collectively because of the various fixed costs that the system has, which have to be contributed to in order to deliver the service to individual consumers. How you charge those standing charges is a matter of considerable debate and something that the Government are looking at. Whether, for example, you charge them as an overall fixed sum or as a sum per household, depending on its energy bills, is a matter of considerable debate at the moment. The idea that standing charges should relate more exactly to what standing charges should be for in the first place is a point well made.
House of Lords: Legislative Procedures
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has, if any, to establish a modernisation committee to review the effectiveness, efficiency and cost of the House of Lords’ legislative procedures.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is helpful to review and consider the effectiveness of our procedures. I will continue to advocate for any changes through agreement in the usual channels and through the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I have no plans to set up a modernisation committee at the moment.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, just over 15 years ago, there was considerable dissatisfaction here with the way our scrutiny work was being performed. The Leader’s Group was set up and reported in 2011, recommending improved focus and better organisation for more effective and efficient scrutiny. In the light of recent events, some of us have come to the view that it is high time again that we had a look at the way that we are undertaking our legislative procedures. I know that the Leader has been taking some steps to effect changes and wants to use the Procedure Committee, but I believe that we should have a more effective and fundamental review, in the way that we had in 2011, and that this would be better established by a separate Select Committee. I hope she will review her position on that and move forward soon.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I always hate to disappoint my noble friend. There are many strengths to the work that we do in here on scrutiny, but I agree that, as it draws to a close, the current Session of Parliament has presented some challenges and at times has tested our procedures. I am always interested to hear proposals from noble Lords across the House. However, it is quite often the case that I have three noble Lords talk to me and give me five different ways of doing something. It is quite hard to find consensus at times. We do need to look at these things, and the Procedure Committee is a good way forward, but we will not stop there. This morning, I convened one of our regular meetings with the usual channels, where we discuss these issues, and the Lord Speaker came along as well. We want to give attention to these issues, but I am not convinced that the committee that my noble friend suggests is the best way of doing so.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, leaving aside the question of whether that largely meaningless word “modernisation” is an appropriate one to use in this context, could the Leader of the House, in her consideration of these issues, give priority to effectiveness over efficiency? When it comes to legislation, Governments love efficiency, but it is very often inimical to exacting scrutiny and challenge, which is the role of your Lordships.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has a good point; I am not sure that there is necessarily a difference. However, how effective we are in managing our time and the issues that we want to raise is a key issue for this House. How we use our time, whether we are making the best use of our time, and whether we are ensuring that the scrutiny we give to legislation is proportionate and will be listened to is a matter not just for the Government but for every Member of this House. If the Government are to listen, we have to play our part. A self-regulating House is also a House that has to show some self-restraint to ensure that our voice is heard in the right places.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, does the Leader agree that we do not need a modernising committee to tell us that frequent sittings past midnight are not the best way to do business? As far as I am concerned, it is not an efficient way of operating, and it fails a duty of care to not only staff but Members. In the new Session, if we could work more closely and, to paraphrase the Chief Whip, “talk less, vote quicker”, we would become more efficient and perhaps do business in a more timely manner, which would mean that the exceptional after-midnight sittings are the exception, not the rule.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think the whole House would agree that very late nights should be the exception. The noble Lord suggests we talk less—I have to say one of the sadnesses of this role of mine is that I talk less in this House than I did before I did this role. But it is about making effective use of the time we have to make our points, have our debates and reach conclusions. There are times when we have felt that debates have been a little longer than they needed to be, but at no point do we in Government want to take steps to limit the scrutiny; we just want to do it more effectively.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has already referred to the work of the committee in 2010-11. One of the recommendations—and there were quite a few that were not implemented—was that the House start on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 2 pm. That was considered a step far too far in 2010. Fifteen years on, can the Leader tell us whether the time might be ripe now, finally, for looking at and rethinking the time the House may start its business and maybe finding a way for us to use our time and expertise more effectively?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, before answering this Question I looked with some care at the recommendations from the Goodlad committee, and a number were not accepted at the time, including that Ministers should be able to answer Questions in either House, that the Lord Privy Seal should have a dedicated Question Time, and that there should be a more proactive role for the Lord Speaker. Those did not find favour with the House at that time—I hesitate to look at the Lord Speaker’s face at this point.
The issue of how we use our time is really important, and I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the next report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee—which I think is coming to the House on Thursday—about using time. The committee is recommending from all parties that we look at the time we spend debating SIs and that some extra time be available in Grand Committee, including, where required, a sitting that would start on Tuesday mornings. It is not about curtailing or extending time; let us use the time we have as effectively as we possibly can. The other thing I am keen to do is give certainty to Members about when business is happening and how long business will take, because that helps Members participate.
Lord True (Con)
I understand the principle behind the Question; there is too much repetitive talk in this House, often between different stages. But that is a matter for restraint on all sides. Will the noble Baroness opposite accept that I welcome very much the initiatives that she has been taking in the usual channels, and I support them in all defined ways to make our proceedings more expedient and work well for everybody? Will she also support the principle that I held to when I was Leader: not to seek in any way to limit the freedoms of individual Members in this House to exercise their rights? It is through those freedoms, not shared by MPs, that this House has become the great revising Chamber that it is.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not seek to curtail freedoms. I do not know whether there is anything specific the noble Lord has in mind. In a House that is self-regulating, we also seek self-restraint. That self-restraint is something that the whole House wants. The certainty for Members that the House is run in an orderly way—which was part of the point of our discussions in the usual channels this morning—is important. It is beholden on the whole House, as well as the leadership of the House, to ensure that Members abide by the conventions and do not feel they are something we can bypass when we feel like it.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, can the Leader of the House give an update on the progress that has been made, or not made, towards the Labour manifesto’s commitment to
“replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There is probably not much I can say that is helpful to the noble Baroness. She will recall that the measures in the Labour Party manifesto are in three stages. The first stage, which was the removal of the hereditary Peers, will be completed at the end of Prorogation; for the second stage, we are awaiting the report from the committee looking at participation requirements of and retirement from the House; the third stage will be a matter for the Labour Party to progress in policy terms, and I cannot give her an update on that at this stage.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the Leader of the House welcome, as I do, what I think is a new spirit of intention, moving from proceedings to services that support Members, to engage with and respond to Members? I think that is led by the new Lord Speaker and the new Clerk of the Parliaments. I think it is very welcome that we are going to be listened to more about the services and how they are delivered in this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I did not quite catch that, but I think that the noble Baroness referred to services of the House. My impression is that the current Lord Speaker and the past Lord Speaker and the Administration of the House have been talking and engaging more with Members, and that should continue. I will certainly keep an eye on that, because Members have an interest in how those services are delivered and how to make best use of them.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Leader agree, in relation to Private Members’ Bills starting in the House of Commons, that we should move toward standard pre-legislative scrutiny of the workability of those Bills before their detail is debated in either House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I suspect that that is not a generic question but one about a specific Bill. I do not think that it would be a standard procedure to have it in place for every Bill. I share the disappointment of many noble Lords that we have not concluded, or are unlikely now to conclude, the passage of that particular Private Member’s Bill, to send amendments back to the House of Commons. The responsibility of this House should be to ensure that we give proper scrutiny and send Bills back. Whether pre-legislative scrutiny would have assisted is something to consider, and it might be something that sponsors of Bills will want to look at in future.
Sudan
Lord Bates
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress towards alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Sudan following the Third International Sudan Conference on 15 April.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my role as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
Last week at the international Sudan conference in Berlin, the Foreign Secretary announced £146 million of new humanitarian funding for Sudan this year, which will reach nearly 2 million people. This includes doubling UK support for local Sudanese responders delivering vital aid in the hardest-to-reach areas. But funding alone cannot solve this manmade crisis, and that is why the Foreign Secretary joined participants in urgently pushing for an immediate ceasefire and for every possible tool to be used to improve humanitarian access to get aid in.
Lord Bates (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful Answer and for her personal commitment and engagement on this important issue. Sudan is the greatest humanitarian crisis currently happening in the world, with 33 million in desperate need of humanitarian assistance, including 17 million children, and 13.5 million people having fled their homes in search of food, water and safety. The situation is getting worse every day. The events in Berlin last week were very welcome in producing additional much-needed assistance and pledges for humanitarian aid, but the great crisis now is how that aid, which has been pledged, will reach the people in such desperate need in Sudan at present, when vital humanitarian access is being so cruelly denied by military forces and even by its own Government.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. This is not particularly a challenge with money; last week, the international community rallied together and raised more than £1 billion to spend on aid for the people of Sudan. As he rightly says, it is how we get that aid to the people who need it most. We are doubling the amount that we spend with local responders, because often they are the right people and the best people to co-ordinate in the most effective way on the ground. It is vital that the warring parties in Sudan, and anyone who is obstructing access for aid, stops doing that immediately. It has almost become competitive, to see who can put the most restrictions on agencies, which are hoping to get aid to where it is needed. It is completely wrong—the aid is there and the resources are there, and we just need the ability to get access.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in this fourth year of Sudan’s war, will the Minister take the opportunity to underline the link between the 14 million people whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says are displaced in Sudan and the desperate Sudanese people who end up in small boats in the English Channel? Secondly, can she say how the Government are responding to what a UN report says are defining characteristics—“hallmarks of genocide”—with mass killings of over 59,000 people, rampant sexual violence and war crimes, including attacks on hospitals, ambulances and medical workers?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, the UK is supporting a sexual and gender-based violence representative to make sure that there is accountability. The fact that sexual violence is used in the way that it is, to the extent that it is in Sudan, often with absolute impunity, is something that the international community needs to act on now and make sure that we reflect on constantly once this is over, because it is something we have seen before, we see it repeatedly and we need to be steadfast in our determination to outlaw it. What the noble Lord says about displaced people is also correct: there are Sudanese people finding their way into small boats and crossing to the UK, but by far the largest number of Sudanese displaced people—around 5 million of them—are living on the border, either in Chad, in South Sudan, in Uganda or in Egypt. That is where the majority of people are and where the focus of our support is, to help those people close to their homes.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a stain on the international community that this war is now entering its fourth year. Of course, the UK is the penholder at the United Nations and therefore there should be an even greater moral duty that we do more to ensure that there are practical steps to protect civilians and that there is access to basic humanitarian aid, as the Minister said. Does she agree that there is inspiration in the very diverse and decentralised community groups that are doing amazing work to save lives and provide some form of assistance? I have been in touch regularly with many of these groups and they are calling for the UK to take the lead in a political process that can start now to ensure that civilians are part of the future and that there is transitional justice to ensure that those who have committed these horrific crimes are held to account for them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more. I have met with the local responders too, and they are an incredibly impressive group of people. They are very well organised and are using technology and developing apps to make sure that their limited resources are allocated in a way that is most efficient and responsive to local need. It is something that I do not think many of the larger agencies could possibly achieve anywhere, never mind in Sudan. They are essential to our effort, which is why we have doubled the funding to them.
The noble Lord is also right to say that the UK has a leadership role to play here, on a civilian track. We are prepared to do that and we are doing that. I do not think that this is a time for getting too far ahead of others, because that kind of leadership does not seem to have been very effective in this circumstance, and it is important that we work closely with Sudanese voices and work in a way that is led by them and centred on their needs. It was good to see, at the conference last week, that strand of work having such focus. That is important, and he makes a very good point.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, last year, OCHA and organisations on the ground working with the humanitarian aid agency reached 17 million people in Sudan. This year, the aim is to reach 20 million people. They do a fantastic job, working in great danger. Will my noble friend join me in paying tribute to their courage?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do. I met Tom Fletcher yesterday to talk about exactly this. I pay tribute to all those who are working in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances in Sudan. It is tragic that we see so many of them losing their own lives as part of that endeavour, so I join my noble friend in her remarks.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has highlighted and acknowledged, the conflict in Sudan has been marked from the very beginning by horrific violence against women and girls, including sexual violence, abductions, forced marriage and countless other abuses. How are the Government supporting UNFPA and other local organisations to ensure that UK aid is specifically reaching women and girls caught up in this conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have put in gender-based violence advisers on the border to help with the psychosocial effects of what people have had to endure. We are now the biggest funder internationally, I think, of UNFPA, because this is such a priority for us, but the noble Baroness is right to draw our attention to the fact that this method of violence, this subjugation, terror and attempts to humiliate and control women in this conflict as a weapon of war is abhorrent and is among the worst that we have ever seen. I hesitate to compare different humanitarian crises, but this is on the largest scale that we have seen this century.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, we have spoken before in this Chamber about the link between the war in Sudan and instability more widely in the Horn of Africa. Does the Minister agree that we need to do much more to persuade and convince the people of this country that this is not a war in some distant country they can forget about, but that it is closely linked in the long term to our own economic growth and inflation rates?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think it would be great to have much more focus globally on the conflict in Sudan and the suffering of the people of Sudan. That includes the public consciousness in this country, because, in the end, that does help force political focus internationally as well. But there is no doubt that the conflict in Sudan is in many ways an expression of disagreements that have emerged elsewhere. The noble and gallant Lord talks about the horn, but obviously in Somalia, Yemen, even across to Iran, we see this instability—it is all connected. It is very poorly appreciated how closely connected these conflicts are. The more we can do to make that case, the better.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, with so many terrible conflicts ongoing in the world at the moment, there is a danger of this one falling underneath the radar, so it is right that we are discussing it today. I thank the noble Baroness for the funding announcements that she has made. Perhaps some of them are more closely linked, as she indicated. Is she aware of the reports yesterday from the US of the arrest of an Iranian woman accused of selling £50 million-worth of bombs, drones and ammunition from the Iranian revolutionary guards to the Government of Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are deeply concerned that there are arms flows through many, many routes. Nobody should be selling arms to Sudan. There is an embargo in Darfur that should be extended and should be properly enforced.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today. When I sit down, any Members who wish to leave before the next business are invited to do so quickly and quietly.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I was hoping for a larger audience. Before we commence today’s next business, I want to briefly update the House on the plan for tomorrow. After Oral Questions, the House will consider the message from the House of Commons on the Crime and Policing Bill. The QSD, led by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, will then be considered immediately. In the course of tomorrow, the House will receive a message from the Commons on the Pension Schemes Bill. It will be considered as soon as possible after the QSD, but it may be necessary for the House to adjourn during pleasure for a short time while everything in for ping-pong is prepared. Once the message has arrived and is available in the Printed Paper Office, noble Lords will have one hour to table any Motions. The precise deadline for tabling will be advertised on the annunciator and via the usual channels once it is known.
I would, however, strongly encourage any noble Lords considering tabling to discuss this in advance with the Public Bill Office. After the tabling deadline has passed, the Public Bill Office will produce a Marshalled List, and the usual briefings will be needed some time after that. The precise time we expect to commence the debate on the Bill will therefore be advertised on the annunciator and via the usual channels, as soon as it is known. I will update the House further tomorrow. I will also now arrange for an email to be sent today to every Member—I had hoped that we would have had a larger audience when I made this announcement.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for denying the Chief Whip the audience that his message deserved.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I begin, as I have previously, by welcoming the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the Government in delivering payments. I commend the diligent work of Sir Brian Langstaff and his team, and all those who contributed to the inquiry and its additional report, which continues to shape the compensation scheme that is trying to bring some measure of justice to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned so tirelessly and bravely for so long in the face of such appalling harms inflicted by the state.
I note the Statement made in the other place and particularly the scale of the delivery now under way, with over £2 billion paid and thousands of individuals having received offers. That is an important milestone in what remains a profoundly long and painful process. Much in what has been set out will be welcomed across this House and, most importantly, by those who have lived with the consequences of this injustice. I also recognise that many of the changes now being brought forward are the result of consultation with the infected and affected community, reflecting the issues they have consistently raised throughout the process. That includes improved recognition of harms arising from infection in childhood, better provision for mental health impacts and loss of earnings where careers were curtailed, and specific new awards around unethical research, including for those who were children at Treloar’s school. These are significant and necessary developments, and I recognise the seriousness with which they are now being addressed.
This House has returned to these issues repeatedly, rightly so given the scale of the injustice and the length of time victims have waited. The question now is not whether the scheme has been improved but whether it can deliver what it promises in practice—fair, timely and trusted compensation at scale. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three areas in her reply.
On delivery, we have already noted that £2 billion has been paid out to 3,161 people, but given that 18,053 have registered their intent to make a compensation claim, can the Minister provide an update on the pace at which the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is expanding the number of claims it can process? Given the scale of what remains ahead, is she confident that IPCA has sufficient staffing and professionalism to address the numbers involved so that victims can receive compensation swiftly?
Secondly, on consistency and implementation, while the tariff-based approach is designed to reduce complexity, several of the new elements, particularly those relating to psychological harm, loss of earnings and exceptional loss, inevitably require judgment in application. Can the Minister set out what safeguards will be in place to ensure consistent decision-making across caseworkers, particularly where evidence is limited or assessments of opportunity or mental health harm are required?
Thirdly, on timing and certainty, the Statement indicates that further legislation will be required to implement these changes. Given the length of time since the inquiry’s additional report and the proximity of the coming parliamentary Session, can the Minister be more specific about the legislative timetable and confirm whether the necessary legislation will be included in the forthcoming King’s Speech?
This scandal represents a catastrophic failure of the state and the response to it must meet that scale. Compensation alone can never fully account for what has been lost, but it must be delivered in a way that is fair, accessible and efficient for both infected and affected individuals. Today’s Statement represents progress, but for many what matters now is not only what has been announced but what will be delivered and whether the system has the capacity, clarity and consistency to deliver it.
As we consider what must happen next, we must recognise an unavoidable truth: for many victims, compensation has come too late. Too many have passed away without receiving a penny, and their families continue to carry the weight of that injustice. Their absence should remain at the forefront of our minds as this scheme moves into its next phase.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I now invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Government for this Statement, and the technical expert group—TEG—at IBCA for its detailed report, which sits behind the proposed changes to the scheme outlined in the Statement. There are many victims who will be reassured by most, though perhaps not all, of the changes.
It is good news to hear that over 3,000 people have now received an offer of compensation, and I note that the Statement says payments have been made to all eligible groups. Can the Minister say how many of that number are from the affected group? While accepting that the Government’s priority has been to secure compensation for infected victims first, it is still true to say that a number of the affected victims are themselves frail and elderly, or, worse, very ill. Does IBCA have a date by which the scheme will be up and running for all affected victims, and will those I have outlined be prioritised as an urgent group?
It is very good news that the Government are removing the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, which is exactly what Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry recommended, but why has it taken well over a year for this decision to be made? Since the spring of 2024, one of the issues that I and others have repeatedly raised with the last Government, as well as with this one, is that the state should not claw back any past benefits, including care costs, from these families who have had to turn to benefits and care support because of a fundamental failure of the state. In so doing, they—both infected and affected—lost jobs, their careers and sometimes their homes, and, much worse, had to live on the breadline for many years. To penalise them at the compensation stage was cruel, so it is good that the deduction is stopping.
However, the bigger point stands, and I know the Minister will recognise this, as she and I often talk about the bigger picture of other schemes as well. This governmental approach is seen in other schemes, and too often the change comes after extended delays. Further, trust with the victims has been lost. Will the Government please rethink this approach in future schemes before decisions are made?
A further point on the care award is that it is not clear whether affected victims who were carers are yet recognised in their own right, or whether the entirety of the care award, including the carer’s element, will remain solely with the estate of the infected person. I wonder if the Minister can update the House.
The changes outlined in the TEG report follow on from the complications of a number of different schemes over many years in the past, using different matrices, and indeed through devolution. Many, especially the ones relating to psychological damage, are welcome. Before Christmas, the TEG published details of how to handle historic suicide in the compensation scheme. The wording of that paragraph in the report has caused real consternation and distress among victims, both the infected and the affected, especially those who have already lost loved ones who were infected to suicide.
The commentary paragraph in the TEG report outlines the complexity of suicide and recognises that it is retraumatising for a family member to have to raise it with IBCA. However, it then goes on to say:
“Even with the best explanation, we believe that linking more compensation to evidence of suicide creates a risk that the Scheme is misinterpreted, and places vulnerable people at risk if they feel pressured to harm themselves to help their families get more compensation”.
Anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide for whatever reason knows that suicide is not a rational act; it is an act of desperation. To suggest that victims might resort to it solely for financial benefit as a small part of a grant of total compensation is just staggering. It has caused real distress and a further loss of trust, again. I hope that this issue can be reviewed.
Finally, it is very good news that compensation is to be given to victims treated unethically, especially the children at Lord Mayor Treloar’s School. I want to ask the Minister two questions in relation to the unethical behaviour by doctors who used infected blood in research projects without informing the victims or, if they were still children, their parents. First, are the police looking at what evidence remains? I know the NHS has said that many documents have been destroyed, but if IBCA has enough evidence to know that they were infected—and in many cases it knows when—then surely any surviving doctor should be questioned. Secondly, will IBCA ensure that there was no other unethical treatment given to people in later decades, not just those infected through the early research projects 50 years ago?
As ever, I am aware that I have asked a number of technical questions to the Minister; if the replies are not to hand, please will she write to me with them?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their thoughtful and productive points. This is a collaborative effort and we all share one goal: to get this right. I hope your Lordships can appreciate that this announcement marks a significant step towards delivering a compensation scheme that not only works better for the infected blood community but explicitly reflects the feedback and views that the community provided to the Government.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who responded, particularly those from the infected blood community. I know many of these responses included testimony of people’s personal experiences, and I want to assure those who were brave enough to share their stories that we are grateful and that we appreciate the additional burden this places on them. I hope our changes to the scheme announced in the House of Commons last week reflect their experiences, their bravery and their loss.
The consultation was not unanimous on every point, nor would I expect it to be. The experiences of those infected and affected are unique and variable, and I am sure that there are issues where some may still feel that their personal experience is not adequately reflected by the compensation scheme. However, I firmly believe that the changes we are making bring us as close as possible to a scheme which truly reflects the range of impacts on a person’s life, while still being deliverable within the scheme’s tariff-based approach.
For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional compensation will be available to those eligible. I encourage noble Lords to read the full response, but, in the interest of today’s debate, I want to set out for Members of your Lordships’ House who do not follow this in necessarily the same detail as the many of those who are living through it do some of the key changes we are making.
First, I know the special category mechanism is a key issue of interest across your Lordships’ House. We are introducing a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for SCM and who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will now ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, which is when the SCM was first introduced. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and siblings affected under the age of 18. These changes give more compensation to affected people whose experience of the scandal was egregious beyond my comprehension. These awards will require no additional evidence from applicants.
The matter of unethical research, which was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is of particular concern. Anyone who has engaged with the inquiry’s findings will know that it is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered this wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation. It is clear from the consultation responses that the award amount offered does not reflect the harm done. We are increasing the unethical research awards. These include increasing our proposed award of £25,000 to those who attended Treloar’s to £60,000, as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000.
The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they have with the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on this matter and we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address the feedback. We will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at the age of 18 or under.
Although I have set out only a few of the changes we are making, they reflect the questions asked by the noble Baronesses, and I hope they go some way to show our commitment to listening to the community and to making decisions with those impacted at the very forefront of our minds. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in order to make these substantial changes to the compensation scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in this calendar year—although whether it will be included in the King’s Speech is slightly above my pay grade.
I turn to some of the other points raised. With regard to IBCA and the extension of the cohorts, noble Lords will appreciate, because we have discussed this in your Lordships’ House on several occasions, that there is an issue of test and learn here. IBCA was a brand new organisation established to distribute £11.8 billion-worth of compensation. That is taxpayers’ money rightly going into compensation to those people who have been affected by this heartbreaking scandal, but it is vital that we get it right. So, to make sure that we do not have to keep going back to cohorts and so that we can make this right, each new cohort is taken through a test-and-learn experience. Given the experience of IBCA up until this point—we have seen that work with the infected community—I have therefore confidence in it to take the next steps. However, nothing is fast enough, and I hope to get as much out of the door as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was absolutely right also to raise consistent decision-making. Training is at the heart of everything that is happening at IBCA, including how the claims managers operate and making sure that there is consistent application.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I reassure her about our prioritisation in terms of all cohorts, where we are now prioritising the elderly and those who are nearing end of life; although everyone deserves their compensation, we are doing that so that we can get it to them as quickly as possible so that they personally have some benefit from it. I look forward to discussing future schemes with the noble Baroness in great detail, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House will want to look at any future schemes to see what lessons have been learned from this scheme and from others.
The noble Baroness raised a very important point about suicide. I will write to her on that, but I have heard what she has said about the paperwork. I will say only that with regard to severe psychological harm, which is the closest space which I can move to in terms of suicide, infected people who can show that their circumstances require more financial loss and care compensation for psychological harm can apply to the new award for SCM. This applies to those whose circumstances require more compensation than the core route provides but who do not meet the eligibility criteria of the existing severe health condition for severe psychiatric disorders.
I was also asked about issues pertaining to carers. If someone who provided care to an infected person is not otherwise eligible for compensation in relation to that person—for example, as an effective sibling or parent—then they may be eligible for compensation as an affected carer and will be eligible to receive an injury award and a social impact award. Otherwise, infected people can continue to give all or some of their care compensation to affected people who provide that care. In the package of changes the Government have announced, we have increased the levels of compensation available to several groups of eligible affected people, but no specific changes are being made to the compensation available to carers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked me about police investigations. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged senior investigators to conduct a review of all available evidence. That work is ongoing and has proven to be much greater in volume than originally anticipated, and I look forward to hearing their findings. One of the most heartbreaking things—if you can rank heartbreak when we are talking about these issues—or perhaps challenging issues here is the fact that there are still people who should be being held accountable for their actions.
We can all agree that getting this compensation scheme right is of the utmost importance. The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme reflects the lived experiences of those infected and affected in a way that allows for the swift delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. These things, hand in hand, go some way to delivering not only justice but, I hope, a sense of peace for the community, if that is even possible.
The reality is that no amount of money is going to fix what was so badly broken here, but, at the very least, the compensation can go some way to supporting the families affected. The community and their stories must always be put first. Sir Brian Langstaff and his team always took this approach. Following the inquiry’s closure in March, I personally thank them for the sensitivity and care with which they carried out their important work. It is with this dedication to the community’s cause over nine years that we have reached this point today, and I know noble Lords across the House echo my gratitude.
The decades of tireless campaigning and the continued determination of the community is a story of strength which will resonate for generations to come. The changes to the scheme we have discussed today will provide uplifted compensation to many infected and affected people in a way that better reflects the unique experiences of so many. Beyond the compensation scheme, I hope they also feel that this consultation has given them a voice and shown that the Government remain committed to doing everything they can to work together to truly get this right. That is, after all, the least we can do.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, because she is sincere and has done a lot to convince us that real change is happening. As ever, sadly, I have to declare an interest, as one of my sister’s twin boys was a haemophiliac who was infected with hepatitis C. He died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby girl. Sadly, his mother—my sister—who campaigned for justice on the contaminated blood scandal for over 40 years died a few weeks ago so, sadly, will never see justice done.
A lot of other elderly and frail people, whom I believe the Minister raised in her response, are dying off. I want to know whether the Minister is aware that there is a great deal of concern about affected people who are not estate beneficiaries, because the Government insist that all infected claims must be processed before their affected loved ones can be considered. People are, effectively, being left to die without justice. Although the Minister raised the issue, I would like to know exactly what steps the Government are taking to prioritise estate claims of the elderly and frail beneficiaries, such as parents, ex-wives and siblings, who are not estate beneficiaries but have suffered terribly and are left waiting in prolonged anguish for the estate claim to be processed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
May your sister’s memory always be a blessing. Your tireless activism will continue in her name—sorry, it was not meant to be me who got tearful. The noble Baroness has fought tirelessly with her sister. It is important that her name, Della Ryness-Hirsch, is on the record.
On the specifics that the noble Baroness raised, I will make sure that she receives a very detailed briefing and she can have whatever meeting she likes to discuss this in very great detail, as I have said to her. But let me be clear: the Government are prioritising those people who are reaching the end of life. All cohorts have now been opened by IBCA; that includes those affected. The noble Baroness may have specific concerns on behalf of her family, but I know that she also now carries a greater weight of fighting for the memories of all those people in this cohort and to make sure that justice is not just done but seen to be done and delivered. We will work together to make sure this happens.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this Statement and I do welcome it, although some of it is belated. But we should never forget that this scandal, tragedy, or whatever term you want to use, happened because many public servants, I am sad to say, behaved despicably.
Although I can welcome the Statement about how the inquiry and its findings are to be implemented and compensation is to be paid, I do not see much evidence across government of addressing the problems that we clearly have with standards of behaviour in public service, which I think many people do not want to acknowledge—let alone do anything about. I do not think the answer is more efficient inquiries or even duties of candour. It is quite clear that the current arrangements, codes and advice that we have are not working. The greatest testimony to the courage of the people who have been affected—I have met many of them—would be if we used this as a way of addressing failures of public service in this country.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will be delighted that I was appointed, seven weeks ago, to be the Minister responsible for standards in government. I am very much exploring all the issues that pertain to both the current standards regime and any changes that will need to be explored going forward. I look forward to discussing it all in detail with Members of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that, on matters pertaining to the infected blood scandal and others, there was a failure of public servants. That is one of the reasons why the noble Lord may not think that the forthcoming duty of candour legislation will help to fix it. I truly believe it will. A great deal of this is about cultural change and about how, 31 years after their introduction, we embed the Nolan principles in all aspects of public life and make very clear the responsibilities that people have. I think people in some areas, both then and now, have forgotten their responsibilities. It is important that we ensure they are reminded of them.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the unethical research awards, but I want to raise something that has been raised with some of us here by the infected and affected. I recognise the uplift, but there are concerns about how those final figures were arrived at. One of the concerns is that this sets a legal precedent; God forbid that there are any future victims of unethical testing. I know that people would welcome a little more detail, perhaps not today but in writing, about how those figures were arrived at. There is concern for others, not just for the people affected this time.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. While I pray to God that there is not another example of quite the horror of this, the reality is that this is not the only compensation scheme running; there have been other moments in our history. I will write to the noble Baroness with the detail of how we got to this point with the calculations, and to make sure about any precedents that have been set. I appreciate the concern. However, it is incredibly important that we recognise what happened at Treloar’s as well as the ongoing memorialisation that will be happening for the victims of Treloar’s.
Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to explain why these regulations are important, why an update to the current framework is necessary and how our approach safeguards holidaymakers while helping the travel industry to prosper.
Travel is central to everyday life for millions across the United Kingdom. For many households, a holiday is the biggest non-essential purchase they will make each year. Holidays support well-being and create precious shared moments for family and friends, as well as offering opportunities to discover new places, food and culture in the UK and abroad. The sector is also a major contributor to the economy, accounting for around £58 billion of UK output and supporting more than 1 million jobs.
Package holidays are a substantial part of that picture. In 2022 the UK package holiday market was worth around £11 billion, spanning high street agents, airlines, accommodation providers and small tourism firms across the country. Each year roughly 15 million to 20 million people in the UK take a package holiday, often choosing that option for its convenience and the additional protections it provides. The package travel regulations sit at the heart of those consumer protections, and these amendments are designed to help businesses to succeed while protecting holidaymakers. Put simply, the regulations are there to ensure that the package travel market functions properly. They reassure consumers, who often pay well in advance, sometimes many months before travelling, and they give traders a clear set of rules within which to operate. In practice, the framework provides insolvency protection if a firm fails, requires clear pre-contract information, sets out who is responsible when things do not go to plan and limits unexpected price increases after a booking is made.
These protections are valued by travellers and reputable operators alike, but they are effective only when they are clear, well understood and proportionate. Experience has shown that some parts of the current regime are not delivering as intended—they can be confusing for consumers and unnecessarily complicated for businesses. Following extensive engagement with industry, consumer bodies and other stakeholders, the Government have identified a set of targeted, practical reforms that will better serve both travellers and traders.
First, we will abolish the current category of linked travel arrangements. At present, LTAs sit somewhere between a package and a simple stand-alone booking and require businesses to put insolvency protection in place. However, the evidence is clear that this category is not meeting its original aim. Too often, consumers cannot tell whether protections apply and businesses are left uncertain about the precise obligations they must meet. That lack of clarity helps nobody. It can weaken confidence, drive up disputes and create avoidable costs, particularly for smaller operators.
Under these reforms, where a consumer makes bookings that in practical terms look and feel like a package—for example, purchasing multiple travel services through the same trader during a single visit—they will receive package protections. This will bring consumer protections in line with how people reasonably understand their booking. Alongside that, we will ease requirements for businesses that do no more than facilitate a customer to make a second booking within 24 hours. That means, for instance, that domestic tourism businesses can signpost customers to one another without automatically triggering wider regulatory obligations, supporting partnership and growth, while consumers remain protected by wider consumer law.
Secondly, reflecting the complex web of relationships involved in delivering a package holiday, we will make new provision to bring greater certainty about refunds and redress where organisers rely on third-party suppliers. Where services are cancelled, organisers will be entitled to receive funds from those third parties within 14 days, aligning organisers’ refund rights with those of consumers. We will also clarify the rules governing organisers’ ability to seek redress from third parties so that financial risk is shared more fairly across the supply chain.
For consumers, removing the confusing linked travel arrangements category and setting out more clearly when package protections apply will make the rules easier to navigate. Greater clarity reduces uncertainty and disputes, helps people book with confidence and reinforces trust in the market. When consumers are treated fairly, they are more likely to return, supporting growth and, in turn, the wider economy.
Consistent, high-quality protections encourage people to book with confidence, which in turn supports demand and rewards those businesses that comply with the rules. For businesses that sell packages, these proposals simplify compliance by removing unnecessary complications. At the same time, strengthening clarity around redress from third-party suppliers means that costs and liabilities can sit more appropriately with those responsible for failures. That will support better planning, healthier cash flow and more effective collaboration across the sector. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force in April 2027, giving the sector almost a year to prepare for and implement the new arrangements.
To conclude, the package travel regulations support a relationship that is both complex and essential, between holidaymakers and the businesses that serve them. Consumers depend on firms to deliver trips that are frequently paid for long before departure and businesses depend on consumer confidence to invest and grow. These regulations make the relationship work by setting out clear rights and duties for both sides. The amendments preserve the central bargain: strong and trusted protections for consumers, alongside a regime that is practical, workable and proportionate for businesses. The reforms demonstrate the Government’s determination to uphold strong consumer protections while stripping away unnecessary red tape, helping travel businesses flourish and supporting growth in every part of the UK. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Tourism Society of the United Kingdom, and all the other things I am involved in within the hospitality industry—none of which now, sadly, is remunerated. I congratulate the Minister on underlining the importance of the hospitality and tourism industry to the United Kingdom. Certainly, I believe that it is one of our great growth industries and has tremendous potential for the future.
We are supportive of these proposals, which are broadly very sensible. The travel industry and the whole way in which people book their holidays have changed dramatically in my working lifetime and particularly over the last 15 or 20 years. The 2018 regulations were an attempt to corral some of the worst practices that were going on, with the development of the internet in particular. That they have been reviewed and considered and these proposals have been brought forward is indeed welcome. Getting rid of the two types of linked package, type A and type B, with type A going into the full package and type B disappearing, will be very welcome to many SMEs in particular. Frankly, my own little business in Scotland, that was probably in B, will be a beneficiary of that.
I have spoken to as many people in the industry as I can, and there is broadly a great welcome. I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on the implementation. I am glad that the year has gone in to give people time to make the necessary changes. There are some concerns about costs. The cost to business over 10 years, which is estimated at £98 million but offset by gains of £117 million, falls on slightly different people, so there are winners and losers in this. Broadly speaking, that is not a huge factor, but I think we should keep an eye on where the costs are just to make sure that we have got that right. I ask the Minister to continue to consult with the industry, both on the implementation of these regulations and what might be done to improve them in future. With that, I welcome their introduction.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I follow the noble Viscount in agreeing that the consultation needs to be ongoing, and I will come back to that theme in a second. It is important that the Government reduce the administrative burden as well as protecting consumers, and this legislation attempts to do so. The Government say that the purpose of the package travel framework is to give consumers appropriate protections while also supporting growth, innovation and collaboration in the travel sector.
Therefore, there are parts of this instrument that we support. The removal of the confusing linked travel arrangements category and the clarification of rights around redress from third parties respond to genuine problems. The Government say that the present framework creates confusion for consumers and unnecessary complexity for businesses, and that stronger, clearer rules can support confidence and demand. But the real question for the House is whether the Government have listened carefully enough to what businesses told them in the consultation—a point I will come back to.
The Government’s own consultation response says:
“Stakeholders consistently highlighted the disproportionate compensatory obligations the regulations place on travel operators … especially in relation to being the compensator of last resort”.
It also records concern about the interaction between ATOL and the package travel regulations for firms selling both flight and non-flight products.
First, on domestic packages, the Government found that 65% of respondents supported exempting UK-only packages without passenger transport from the regulations. Accommodation providers and leisure businesses said the current rules can discourage them from offering simple bundled products. Some said the legal and insurance responsibilities attached to packaging up a stay with an activity or voucher act as a deterrent, especially for smaller operators, but the Government have ultimately decided not to proceed.
My first question to the Minister is this: if the Government accept that many domestic tourism businesses are being discouraged from innovating, what practical alternative are they offering those firms today? If they will not legislate in this area, how exactly will they help smaller domestic operators to bring new products to market?
Secondly, on insolvency protection, the Government say that trust providers supported allowing organisers to combine trust protection with bonding and that 57% of respondents said that greater flexibility would help businesses meet their obligations, but the same response also makes it clear that industry fears piecemeal reform. Businesses warned that more flexibility without clearer trust account rules, stronger insurance obligations and better oversight could actually weaken protection and widen the gap between regulatory intent and industrial reality. My second question to the Minister is: what work is the department doing to address the broader structural problems that businesses have identified on insolvency protection, rather than leaving them unresolved, and what timetable is there for that work?
Thirdly, on redress and refunds from third parties, the move to create a 14-day period for refunds of cancelled services and clarify that there is a right to redress is welcome, as far as it goes. However, there are ongoing difficulties with enforceability, especially against overseas suppliers, so my third question is: what use is a strengthened right to redress if a small or medium-sized organiser still cannot enforce it effectively against a supplier overseas, and what support enforcement mechanisms will the Government put in place?
Fourthly, on other tourist services, the consultation exposed a real problem for many smaller businesses. The Government found that 55% of respondents wanted the “significant proportion” test removed. This test is used to decide whether an added tourist service, such as an excursion, spa treatment or event ticket, is valuable enough compared with the rest of the booking to make the whole arrangement a regulated package holiday. A modest add-on can become a significant proportion simply because the room rate is low, drawing smaller firms into regulation more easily than larger ones selling the same product. So my fourth question is: what further work will the department do with industry to produce a clearer and fairer test for other tourist services, particularly for smaller operators who say the present rules can work against them?
There is a further concern that we feel Ministers have not properly answered. Under the Government’s approach, firms may no longer be fully in control of when they are selling a package. The industry’s concern is that package status could be triggered not by a deliberate commercial decision of the operator but by the behaviour of the consumer during a single online journey. That matters because full package status brings with it major legal obligations including insolvency protection, organiser liability, refund obligations and, of course, wider compliance costs. The gateway concepts on which this reform depends—the “single visit” and “facilitates”—remain undefined in legislation. Businesses are being asked to accept materially greater liability, while the key terms determining when that liability arises are still unclear.
That lack of clarity creates a risk of unintended package organisers. Hotels offering add-ons, airlines selling accommodation or car hire through third-party plug-ins, and banks, supermarkets or white-label distributors that host travel products may all find themselves pulled into package organiser status without ever having consciously chosen to enter that market. The Government say that these reforms will make the rules clearer for consumers and support compliant businesses, but many in the industry fear the opposite: that it will mean more uncertainty for firms, more complexity in compliance systems and more scope for accidental liability. Can the Minister confirm that her department will publish statutory or regulatory guidance defining “single visit” and “facilitates” before any commencement date takes effect, so that operators at least have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition?
There is one final question that I feel obliged to ask, because the Act under which this regulation is being made, namely the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, actually expires in June this year. What replaces it? That is a question which my noble friend Lord Moylan asked during a debate on a transport SI recently, and to which the Government have yet to provide a satisfactory answer. Could the Minister have another go now, please?
We will not oppose these regulations today. However, I hope that the Minister can answer the questions I have raised.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and for underlining the importance of the sector. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for welcoming the measures we are putting forward today to simplify the rules. We will keep a close eye on implementation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to talk to the industry more about these regulations, but can she commit to listening to what they have to say? The reason I mention that is that the option to absorb LTA(A) into the package definition was never presented to the industry as a specific, serious or preferred option—the closest it came was as one of four multiple-choice questions. It is very important that the industry be listened to when it is airing its concerns, particularly about single visit and facilitation. I ask that of the Minister, and I apologise for delaying her.
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 53rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this order is a necessary measure to address the historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other officeholders’ pay. The other officeholders are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses and two Opposition Assistant Whips in the House of Commons.
In 1997, a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain officeholders to senior Civil Service pay bands. The formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the midpoint of the senior Civil Service pay bands. During the financial year 2023-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in 1997, the salaries of Permanent Secretaries had often been excluded from the calculation, despite the legislation not permitting such an exclusion. This technical misapplication of the law has happened under successive Administrations, over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that Permanent Secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. The Government believe the policy that has been often applied since 1997, in line with the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendation, is the correct approach and are introducing this Order in Council to ensure the law aligns with long-standing policy.
The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified officeholders. Given the misapplication has been applied for several decades, resetting the salaries in law provides legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplifts. These reset figures were calculated based on the average annual change in the midpoint of the senior Civil Service pay bands including the Permanent Secretary pay band for each financial year since the misapplication was identified, in line with the formula set out in the legislation.
Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude the Permanent Secretary pay band from future calculations. This change simply formalises the policy approach that has been applied in practice, by all Administrations, for over two decades. For the initial year beginning 1 April 2026, the order sets out a transitional measure where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the order’s retrospective effect. The impact of this order is minimal; it affects only ministerial office holders and a small number of other office holders in Westminster. Due to incomplete records, it has not been possible to determine the exact financial impact of this misapplication. Analysis shows that no individual has gained or lost a substantial amount.
I want to be clear that for Ministers, this order will result in no change to actual take-home pay. The Prime Minister has maintained the policy of freezing ministerial salaries, and Ministers will continue to waive their statutory entitlement. In fact, ministerial salaries for Members of the House of Commons have not increased since 2008. Ministerial salaries were actually cut in law, via an Order in Council, in 2011. Lords ministerial salaries have not risen since 2008 and were cut in 2011, but in 2019-20, they began to claim their full salary entitlement. They were again frozen in 2020-21 and remain so today. The other officeholders make a personal decision on whether to take the salary they are entitled to in law or to waive part of the salary in line with the ministerial salary freeze. The order therefore does affect the salaries paid to these individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate their annual pay increases while work on this order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments covering annual pay increases owed to current and former officeholders in these roles dating back to 1 April 2023.
The legislation is also linked to the salaries of the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in the other place, whose salaries increase through the same formula but are paid by Parliament. They will also receive back payments dating back to 1 April 2023. The total cost of back payments to the Government is just over £15,000. This is for the roles paid by the Government: the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speaker in the House of Commons, the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses and two Opposition Assistant Whips in the House of Commons. The total cost of back payments to Parliament is between £7,000 and £19,000. This is for the roles paid by Parliament: the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in the other place and the Lord Speaker.
It is important to note that the majority of the back payments represent money that would have been paid if the misapplication had not been identified. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their consideration of this Order in Council and for their respective reports. I shall briefly address the issues they have raised.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that it has taken three years for the Cabinet Office to resolve this issue. Although a small issue, it is a complex and technical one; it is right that the Government took the time to ensure that the misapplication was addressed correctly, and I am sure that noble Lords will support this order which addresses this long-standing misapplication of the law.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instrument has reported that this Order in Council appears to have retrospective effect without the express authority of the parent legislation. The Cabinet Office considers that the Act provides power for limited retrospection, and that the retrospective effect of this order is justified and fair. This is because backdating of salary increases is normal practice given that, for senior civil servants, salary increases are usually not known until the summer but pay increases take effect from the 1 April. In addition, as I have set out, the impact of this order is minimal, affecting Ministers and a small number of other officeholders.
In summary, the Government are bringing forward this Order in Council to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and certain officeholders’ pay. This is a necessary measure to address a technical misapplication of the law and will ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for the technical explanation of a complex matter, but could she also answer a couple of relevant questions? First, what is the progress on having more Lords Ministers in receipt of salaries, after our recent discussions and legislation on extending the number of paid posts? What progress is there on helping Ministers rather more by clearer definitions of their aims and their targets, with suitable mentoring and support and, if necessary, performance reporting, so that we can all see that these well-justified salaries are indeed well justified and are resulting in better government?
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As she has set out, it is a sensible and largely technical measure that would bring the law on ministerial and officeholder salaries in line with the current practice of excluding Permanent Secretary salaries from the calculation of annual salary increases. It brings the statutory framework in line with the approach that has in practice been followed by successive Governments since 1997. It does not change the underlying policy; rather, it corrects a discrepancy in the legislation relating to the treatment of Permanent Secretary salaries within the relevant calculation. It also addresses the criticism, as the Minister pointed out, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that this issue has not been previously addressed despite the discrepancy being noted by the Cabinet Office in the 2023-24 financial year. On that basis, I do not take issue with the intent of the order.
The principal point on which I would welcome further clarity relates to ministerial pensions. The Government have been clear that ministerial salaries will remain frozen in practice and that take-home pay will therefore be unaffected by this order. However, the order alters the maximum salary that they may receive under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It would be helpful, therefore, to understand whether future pension entitlements will be calculated on the basis of that legal maximum salary or on the salary actually received. If it is the former, this measure may have the effect of increasing pension accrual despite the continuation of the pay freeze. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out how pension calculations will operate, and whether any additional cost to the public purse is expected as a result.
More broadly, this measure raises a question regarding the scope of the ministerial pension scheme itself. Unlike with other public service pension schemes, there does not appear to be any provision for forfeiture in cases of serious misconduct. In contrast, we have long accepted in principle across the public sector that pensions may, in defined and exceptional circumstances, be subject to forfeiture where there has been criminal conduct connected to office. Given that disparity, it would be helpful to understand whether the Government have considered bringing forward legislative changes to place ministerial pensions on a more consistent footing with other public service pension schemes in this respect.
I note that similar issues are already being examined elsewhere in relation to standards in public life, and it would seem desirable for the legislative framework here to be equally coherent. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister would inform the House whether the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to the current Pension Schemes Bill to address this issue, or whether they have concluded that no legislative change is required. If the latter is the case, I ask the Minister to outline the reason for maintaining the present position, given the clear precedent for forfeiture provisions in other public service pension schemes. It would also be helpful to know whether this matter is under active consideration within government, or whether it has been ruled out entirely.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Like magic, I have just received the answer to one of the noble Baroness’s questions. I will address the questions as they came and start with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.
The Bill we discussed last week is currently awaiting Royal Assent and is not yet an Act, but, on a personal level, I am awfully grateful to your Lordships’ House for passing that legislation. As the Minister for Standards in the Cabinet Office, I was here, as the noble Lord will be aware, when we discussed it. As the Minister for Standards and Conduct across government, the subject of mentoring and support in the area for which I have responsibility and more widely has been the subject of conversations I have had. I look forward to being able to bring forward recommendations when I have been in post slightly longer looking at this in the round. I reassure the noble Lord that this is under active consideration.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, pensions have been based on claimed salary, not entitled salary, since 2015. On the issue of forfeiture—a nice segue, if I may congratulate the noble Baroness— I will write to her with the detail but there are currently no active considerations in this space, so we will not be bringing forward an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill, which I am sure noble Lords will be grateful of at this stage of ping-pong. Having said that, the noble Baroness raises a very important point about wider standards issues and how everything operates in the round. She and I are jointly committed to upholding the highest standards in public life, and I will write to her with all the details on her specific questions.
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this order. Though technical in nature, the measure is essential for maintaining the integrity of our statutory framework and ensuring that the law accurately reflects decades of established policy. As I have outlined, this order is fundamentally about regularisation; we are addressing a historical discrepancy that has spanned multiple Administrations and several decades. By formalising the exclusion of Permanent Secretaries’ pay from the ministerial salary formula, we are not creating new policy. I thank all noble Lords for the points they raised in today’s debate and I commend the order to the House.
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this instrument I will speak also to the Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026, both of which were laid before the House on 26 February. For ease of discussion, if the House will allow me, I will refer to the first of these two instruments as the regulations and the second as the order.
These instruments are somewhat technical in nature, but they have a bigger picture behind them. Both are intended to tackle the terrible harms caused by illegal drugs. Drug misuse has a profound impact on crime, health and productivity. Nearly half of acquisitive crime and over 50% of homicides are linked to drugs. In 2024, drug misuse deaths in England reached almost 3,500—the highest on record. Drug misuse costs the economy some £20 billion per year. The Government are committed to protecting our communities by reducing drug-related harms.
Drug precursor chemicals—DPCs—are used to make illicit drugs, but some have legitimate industrial uses. Controlling them is a vital way of tackling drug harms. It is important also as a vital string to our bow economically. It is always better to address a problem closer to source, and so it is better to tackle drug supply before a drug has even been made. There are two ways in which we control DPCs. The first is to place controls on their legitimate use, to minimise the chance that substances which were intended for bona fide industrial purposes could be diverted to producing illicit drugs. The regulations we are debating today address this. The second way is to criminalise the deliberate illicit use of DPCs for the purposes of making drugs. The order we are debating today addresses that.
To take the regulations first, currently companies must, in most cases, apply for licences and other authorisations to use DPCs. They must also, in most cases, properly document and label DPC consignments, and they must always tell the National Crime Agency whenever they have reason to believe a DPC may be diverted for illicit use. Those requirements were an EU responsibility before Brexit. Since then, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, whereas in Great Britain a similar system applies as assimilated law. These regulations correct some deficiencies in that assimilated law.
First, Ministers currently do not have an effective power to control new DPCs in Great Britain. The list of chemicals subject to control in Great Britain, as it was, has been effectively frozen in time since January 2021. Since then, the EU has controlled 10 new DPCs and 14 related substances. Those controls have therefore applied in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain, on the other side of the Irish Sea.
The substances are used to produce MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, with fentanyl, whose deeply harmful nature is sadly all too familiar and which is particularly in use in America. Substances such as that known as crystal meth and amphetamines are also used. All of those, except amphetamine, are class A drugs, and for good reason. Fentanyl can, among other things, cause people to stop breathing. Ecstasy can lead to serious consequences, particularly for those with heart conditions, blood pressure problems, epilepsy or asthma. It was mentioned 78 times on certificates for death registered in England and Wales in 2024. Methamphetamine, quite apart from its severe health consequences, is linked to violent crime. The regulations will add those 10 DPCs and related substances to the control regime in Great Britain and will allow Ministers to control others in the future.
The second deficiency in the assimilated law is that there is currently no clear statutory mechanism to control the movement of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulations will now provide one. Such controls are a vital way to prevent the diversion of DPCs to illicit use and to discharge our responsibilities under international law. At the same time, we recognise the importance of enabling trade to flow as smoothly as possible within the UK, and we are therefore waiving the need to pay a fee.
Finally, while the requirements on companies across the UK to label and document transactions involving DPCs and to tell the National Crime Agency of their suspected diversion apply to one set of chemicals, the criminal offences for not doing so apply to a different, smaller set. It cannot be right that there are legal requirements on companies but no sanctions for ignoring them. The regulations will ensure that the offences apply to the same DPCs as do the positive requirements.
I turn to the order. This instrument will extend the list of DPCs that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. The order adds to that list 12 DPCs and 16 related substances that the United Nations controlled between March 2014 and March 2024. These DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. This should certainly have been done earlier—I cannot comment on why it was not, as this was under a Government not controlled by my party—but I know that my colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime has taken very seriously a number of criticisms made by noble Lords on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and acted accordingly.
Finally, in line with usual practice, I draw the attention of the House to the correction slip for the regulations. This corrected two minor typographical errors. One changes a reference from “the Great Britain” to “Great Britain”; the other replaces a reference to the third occasion when a phrase appears on the second occasion. I hope those minor amendments are accepted.
While I am on my feet on the matter of drugs, I take this opportunity to comment on a question I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on 13 April about nitrous oxide. I stated that in the year September 2024 to September 2025 there were 242 convictions for the supply of nitrous oxide, with 234 sentences to date. In fact, it was October 2024 rather than September 2024 and the 242 convictions and 234 sentences were for possession or supply, mostly possession. It is important to place that small clarification on the record.
In summary, the Government are unwavering in their commitment to tackle illegal drugs, which cause misery and harm across society, and these two instruments will aid us in that critical effort. I beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the basic idea that the list of controlled drug precursor chemicals should be in sync across the UK and with international agreements that we have signed up to is a clear and reasonable one. More complicated is the process by which we have got here. It is also less straightforward whether the Home Office is applying the right lessons from the mistakes involved.
The controlled drugs SI would give the Government the power to align the lists of drug precursor chemicals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in future. Given the problems of delay that have brought us here today, with it taking five years since the end of the implementation period for this SI to come forward, can the Minister set out whether the department has set any targets or guidelines for how quickly it will move in future to use such powers? The Home Office has said that work on this SI started in 2024 and that this is one of its “legislative priorities”, yet we have the SI in Parliament only in 2026. Even if we start the clock after the 2024 general election, that is still the best part of two years to serve up an SI that was already delayed and running late. Is the Minister happy with that sort of turnaround time, and is anything being done to speed up the secondary legislation process in the Home Office?
The criminal justice SI involves even longer delays and a failure to act for at least a decade to update domestic law in the light of international agreements, in an area—criminal justice—that has consistently been a priority of different Home Secretaries and Governments. It has been a decade full of tough rhetoric about crime and requests for new legislation from the Home Office, yet also one of failure to keep on top of what should be pretty basic administrative tasks: having a proper legislation log, handover notes and processes for staff, and keeping a list of drugs up to date. Yet we know that was not the case. The Minister and the Home Secretary can reasonably point out that they were not in post for most of that decade, and in correspondence with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee the relevant Minister has set out remedial steps, which is welcome.
What this leaves, though, are two concerns. First, there is the very basic nature of the mistakes: the absence of a proper legislation log and the absence of proper handover processes, particularly in a department where staff churn is a regular and even frequent occurrence. Over the years when these basic measures were missing, a variety of different staff would have churned through posts and in some way should have been aware of or responsible for such issues. That these problems persisted for so long suggests a systemic flaw in the management processes or quality in the department. Moreover, as the Home Office has, according to its correspondence with the SLSC, decided not to track down which staff were involved, it is quite possible that people who made mistakes did not know and still do not know, and need to learn from them. Those who have moved on to other roles may well be making the same mistakes elsewhere.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these two draft instruments, which together update the framework governing drug precursor chemicals. On these Benches, we support the objectives of these measures. Drug precursors play a critical role in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances, and it is right that the law keeps pace with international developments and the evolving methods of criminal networks. Strengthening controls and closing loopholes is therefore both necessary and welcome.
The draft statutory instruments will bring the UK into closer alignment with its obligations under the 1988 UN convention by updating the list of substances that it is a criminal offence to supply or manufacture where there is knowledge or suspicion of illicit use. They also seek to address deficiencies in the current regime by aligning the list of controlled substances with those subject to criminal sanctions.
While the substance of these changes is sensible and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has observed, not in itself controversial, the context in which they arise warrants some reflection. The committee has pointed to delays in updating domestic legislation to reflect changes to international obligations and to the time taken to resolve discrepancies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the end of the implementation period. There are also concerns about the clarity of the statutory basis for certain authorisations and fees. Although these issues are now being addressed, they underline the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks remain up to date, coherent and legally robust. The House is entitled to expect that such matters are identified and acted upon in a timely and consistent way.
In conclusion, we support these instruments and the improvements they make to the enforcement framework. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these draft instruments to the House today, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments that have been made and I understand the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that the Government came into office in July 2024 and, as soon as we identified the challenges posed in terms of orders not having been implemented previously, we took action to try to bring this back into some sort of order. There have been, self-evidently, challenges in relation to a number of issues. I cannot ultimately comment on what happened under previous Governments, but I can confirm that we took action on this issue as soon as it was identified.
I can also confirm to the noble Baroness that officials have reviewed electronic records to seek to understand why the Act was not updated earlier. Those records did not indicate the reason for these omissions. That is a fault that we are looking to review. It may be that, since the UN controlled no DPCs between 2000 and 2014, awareness of the need to update the Act when it started doing so was lost within the department. To help mitigate against that in future, we have now created a log of drugs legislation to ensure this does not happen again. Through the order we are debating today, we are trying to put those omissions right.
As the Minister for Policing and Crime set out in her letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 23 March, the Government understand the committee’s concerns about record-keeping, which has likely contributed to the delay in including the 12 DPCs and the 16 other elements in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. As a result, as I have said, drugs legislation logs have been created. The Government consider that the gap in knowledge is unlikely to have had wider implications across the Home Office, but I can assure noble Lords that the Minister for Policing and Crime has raised this issue with the Permanent Secretary. She has asked him to ascertain what Home Office legislation is dependent on or affected by international obligations and how we monitor those international obligations to ensure that any changes are reflected in UK law.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I know that charging and the authorisation of fees being paid was an important issue. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the issue of plans for fees which were previously charged. I am happy to confirm today that we will be offering refunds to those who have been affected. The total sum is only around £3,000, but it is still an important issue. We will be looking at how we can manage that in due course and I will certainly be examining that with my colleagues in future.
We are where we are. The Government have tried to make some changes with both these instruments brought forward today to ensure that there is a United Kingdom approach and those regulations are now in order. I commend both to the House.
Motion agreed.
Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these instruments—the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—were laid before the House on 5 March 2026. They relate to the Government’s stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified.
These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse. Noble Lords might be interested in the fact that, as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels. In the financial year 2024-25, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom.
The Government inherited that situation and have to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs. The Government have already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% over that period, and we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer.
One of the instruments before the House today removes the duty to provide asylum support, reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case-by-case decisions and gives the Government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take firmer action against those who do not comply with the rules.
For example, removing Regulation 5 allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas after explicitly confirming, as part of their visa application, that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay. It is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer-funded support.
The same principle applies to those granted permission to work where their asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has the legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute in an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protecting the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.
The other instrument we are debating today focuses on illegal working and makes doing so an explicit reason to discontinue an individual’s asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish that they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support, without the need for protracted fraud investigations.
Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.
Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.
Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.
Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.
This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their places for this debate that were here for the debate last Tuesday. I trust that the Minister is feeling much better.
As with last week, these SIs on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework the Minister just referred to, which would help the House understand the implications. I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I cannot not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service over a nine-year period. They were men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Teather—who I think of as a noble friend—said in her deeply moving speech, for the second week running we are here debating secondary legislation that represents another step in what the Home Secretary has described as
“the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 509.].
In another critical report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the regulations to the attention of the House. The committee has been working overtime on asylum legislation, and we should be grateful to its members for their work. Once again, they complain about lack of clarity on aspects of the new policy, which
“makes it impossible to scrutinise this measure adequately”.
They draw attention to tensions and risks associated with the policy, which are not adequately addressed by the Home Office. Once again, my noble friend the Minister, who is always most gracious in dealing with our criticisms, has my sympathy for having to defend the regulations. I am glad that his throat is no longer protesting against the task, and that he feels better this week.
I will focus on the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support. Starting with process issues, the committee yet again draws attention to the lack of consultation, which was justified in the Explanatory Memorandum on grounds of the wider policy development of which this change is a part. The Home Office has given assurances that views will be sought from stakeholders once the proposals reach a “sufficiently developed stage”. The committee suggests that we ask my noble friend what criteria will be used to determine when a “sufficiently developed stage” has been reached to trigger consultation. I do ask that, but I also want to put on the record my view that the important principle of revoking a right to support for a particularly vulnerable group of people, as we have heard, should itself have been the subject of consultation regardless of wider policy development, the timeline for which remains unclear.
If, as the Home Office argues, policy is insufficiently developed for the provision of a proper impact assessment, then, as the Refugee Council argues, it should have waited and introduced a measure as part of the primary legislation expected in the next Session. Indeed, as some of us argued last week, and as my noble friend Lord Dubs, who is unable to be in his place, pointed out, this and the changes as a whole
“are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees ”.—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 299.]
and should be included in primary legislation in the name of democratic accountability.
I welcome the fact that, despite the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support, families containing a child aged under 18 will continue to receive support for the whole household where otherwise adequate accommodation or the child’s essential living needs are not being met in line with Section 122 of the 1999 Act. I would be grateful if my noble friend confirmed that my reading of this is correct so that it is on the record.
Nevertheless, I am worried about the likely impact of the removal of the duty to provide support. The SLSC tried to get clarification of what the EM meant when it said that support will remain available to those “in genuine need”. One example given was an asylum seeker who has the right to work. When the committee asked whether support might be withdrawn where an asylum seeker is not able to exercise the right to work because they cannot find employment—particularly bearing in mind that changes to the list of jobs they are allowed to take after 12 months could mean it becomes harder for those who do not have the necessary skills—the answer was:
“We are developing our policy on this”.
That really is not good enough.
Another example given was
“where an asylum seeker could be supported by friends and family”.
How on earth will this work? Will an asylum seeker have to give a list of friends and family, and will they then be means tested to see if they can afford to support them? Even if they can afford to do so, there is no legal obligation to support family and friends in this way, in either the short or longer term. Personally, I find this suggestion extraordinary.
I am not surprised that the committee considered the inability to answer questions about the meaning of “genuine need” unsatisfactory, despite Home Office assurances that cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as my noble friend said earlier, taking account of obligations under the ECHR—which, as the committee notes, raises questions about staff resources.
Moreover, there is an underlying issue here that the report did not explore: the difference between a right and a discretionary power. The EM states that
“human rights legislation and equality law … ensure that any changes to policy will operate within a framework that respects fundamental rights”,
a point made by my noble friend. Sir Jonathan Jones KCB KC points out for the Institute for Government that this means that decisions not to grant support could be subject to judicial review. But that is a last resort, and I am concerned about the implications for everyday decision-making.
I have been around long enough to remember when some basic elements of the social security safety net were subject to discretion rather than set out as clear rights. Discretion opens the door to inconsistency and even discrimination, not necessarily conscious. Back in 1975 the official Supplementary Benefits Commission warned that discretion provides scope for decision makers’ own “moral judgments” to shape decisions on eligibility, so the promise that the decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis is not necessarily reassuring.
Discretion robs asylum seekers of dependability and certainty and reinforces their sense of precarity, which the noble Baroness referred to, along with the changes debated last week. While it might meet the letter of our international obligations, I am not sure it meets the spirit expressed in a statement from the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that asylum seekers should be able
“to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination”.
One reason why rights are so important in this context, as we have heard, is that they provide a firmer protection against destitution, although it should be remembered that asylum support provides a pretty minimal standard of living. Asylum seekers are already disproportionately likely to be in deep poverty and to suffer food insecurity. It is disgraceful that the press release accompanying the draft regulations had the headline:
“Asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain’s generosity”,
once again conflating asylum seeking and illegal migration and using pejorative terms such as “handouts”. As Minister Norris himself said in a debate last year,
“we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 285WH.]
Nevertheless, the SLSC was concerned about the likely risk of destitution due to the revocation of the duty to provide support and how this could lead to crime, illegal working and homelessness, in conflict with the national plan to end homelessness and, according to the Times, the subject of an internal warning from the MHCLG. It notes:
“The Home Office has not set out how it will manage these risks, and the House may wish to enquire further”.
I hope my noble friend can be more forthcoming now, including on the particular dangers for women, who Women for Refugee Women fear will be at increased risk of abuse, violence and exploitation, including being forced into sex work.
Given my noble friend’s welcome repeated assurances last week that
“equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work”,—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 321.]
I hope he will give this point serious consideration. Here I find it difficult to believe the Explanatory Memorandum’s statement that
“no significant … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”
is foreseen. Again, to pick up on what the noble Baroness said, surely the risk of destitution could have a significant impact on local authorities and on refugee and homelessness charities, which will have to pick up the pieces.
Before making my final point on these regs, I take this opportunity to raise the question of the move-on period. The Refugee Council points out that the third set of regulations published alongside those that we are debating provided the perfect opportunity to update the previous 28 days to the 42 days now in operation. I ask my noble friend why that opportunity was not taken. Will it be taken soon? Is he able to tell us what arrangements will be made for monitoring the 42-day move-on period, which is a real improvement that I welcome but is less than the 56 days in the initial pilot which was what local authorities and charities had been calling for? Is he able to commit to publication of the evaluation of that pilot before Parliament is prorogued? I raised these matters in a letter that I sent my noble friend yesterday so I apologise for repeating them today, but anything that he is able to put on the record now would be helpful.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I find myself in the happy position again of agreeing with the Government. I commend them for these regulations, which go some way to addressing the risk of abuse of our asylum support system. These changes are a good start, but they could go further. I have one or two questions for the Minister, though, in respect of each of the regulations before the House today.
First, in respect of the asylum support provision relating to illegal working, perhaps the Minister could tell us how it is envisaged that the Government would defend a claim brought by an asylum seeker—or a failed asylum seeker under the other regulations—who has been found to be working illegally and has had their support removed. If they make an application, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has indicated, to have support restored, and then say that unless it is restored the Government will be in breach of their obligations under Article 3, how does the Home Office propose to defend the withdrawal of support in those circumstances?
The second question is in relation to the removal of the duty to provide accommodation, which came out of the EU reception conditions directive and has restored the arrangements in the 1999 Act to being a power to provide accommodation. How does the Home Office propose to examine the accommodation and support provided in our neighbouring countries? My recollection of reviewing that support is that ours is far more generous than that available in France, Ireland, Denmark or the US. Could the Minister ask his officials to look into the provision of asylum support in those countries and tell us how our present offering compares, and write back to me and put a copy of that letter in the Library, assuming he does not have those answers to hand?
I return to my main point that I am supportive of these instruments. They are a good start, and I thank the Home Office for bringing them forward.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Home Office on its direction of travel, but I have a few points I think it needs to consider to get this right. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to publish more regularly the gender breakdown of asylum seekers so that we can be clear that it is a representative proportion of those to whom we may have an obligation.
It would also be rather helpful for the Home Office to do more in the international context. I recall going with the former Bishop of Durham to Burundi, where a third of the entire population had sought asylum in a neighbouring Commonwealth country, Tanzania. It is part of the Commonwealth and was previously part of the Empire. It seems to me that part of our obligation to those seeking asylum is to ensure that those large numbers who temporarily felt obliged to move to a safe haven in Tanzania were able to return—as they did, but with some difficulty—to one of the most impoverished countries in the world, Burundi.
Similarly, I visited the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, where more than 1 million have fled from Myanmar—again, a country with which we have a very long-standing relationship. These are all asylum seekers, but it would be rather absurd for us to have a policy that suggests that the way to address those problems would be to facilitate those people coming here via organised crime gangs.
It is interesting to observe how low, or non-existent, the number of rough sleepers is in certain parts of the country. That is not correlated to wealth and income in those areas; it is correlated to the amount of casual work available—work on farms, for example, or in vape shops. There is a new mania in this country for everyone not to wash their own car but to pay someone else to do it. The evidence I have seen would suggest that many of these businesses are impossible to trace, and yet the Home Office is meant to have a system to ensure that illegal working is clamped down on. What further will be done about the registration of businesses to ensure that a business on a set and identifiable premises, which someone could go in and ask for work from, is in fact a legitimate business operating within the law, rather than a cash business facilitating the work of organised crime gangs in trafficking people to this country? In the same way that we have an electoral roll that we are required to be on, would it not be worth considering requiring a local authority to hold a business roll of who is operating a business, so that we can start to cut through? We have done this with some of the manipulation of Companies House from abroad in illegal working in this country. It would give both the country and those seeking refuge a better deal, and the criminal gangs a worse deal and less profit motivation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was going to rise after the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, to say that they gave two absolutely magnificent speeches. I agree with them both and I will not aim to repeat them. It is quite telling that I am now speaking after we have heard strong support from the Conservative Benches for the Government’s policy, and I suspect we may hear the same from the Conservative Front Bench. As I said, I do not aim to repeat what has already been said— I agree with everything that both noble Baronesses said—but I want to make a couple of points. One is to pick up on some words from the Minister, who rightly said that most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the Government are under pressure on these statutory instruments. On being challenged by our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Home Office said:
“We are developing our policy”
in this space. I have a question for the Minister on something that could save a great deal of the need to house asylum seekers. Is that “developing our policy” considering allowing asylum seekers the right to work, as they have in many countries?
I note that I am going to applaud the Government here, because we have seen a very small advance in the past few weeks. We saw three weeks ago that doctors and other medical professionals who have been seeking asylum for 12 months will now be able to work in the NHS. Well, that is great, although I have to ask why they have to wait 12 months, given our great need for their services and skills, and the fact that they would inevitably benefit from being able to use their skills as soon as possible.
It is worth looking at the history of that, because it had been the case historically under the shortage occupation list, which the former Conservative Government replaced with the immigration salary list in April 2024. We have seen the BMA, REACHE—the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Centre for Healthcare Professionals Education—and others taking legal cases; it may have been that the legal pressure was enough to make the Government change their mind. But if the Government are doing that for doctors, even after 12 months, why not for engineers or scientific researchers? Why not for anyone who can contribute their skills, energy, time and talents to our country, which is, of course, everybody? Why not allow asylum seekers to work? The direct question that I put to the Minister is: in “developing our policy”, are the Government at least considering that?
I want to pick up on one other point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because it really deserves to be highlighted. It is the issue of support from friends and family, which picks up on the case study that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, presented to us. Something that I have heard from visiting refugee support groups over many years is how often a situation where someone is offered free accommodation—possibly by quite distant family or friends, very loosely defined—can quickly turn into a situation that can only be equated with modern slavery. I am thinking of one case study that I heard of: a very small and frail older woman ended up sleeping on a mat in the kitchen and working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It appears that the Government are trying to force people to create that kind of situation, from what is being suggested with the friends and family situation.
I have a final point to put to the Minister. Having looked at the impact assessments, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said how inadequate they are. I also want to repeat the point that the idea that there is no significant impact on the voluntary and private sector is just a nonsense. I am afraid that is a nonsense statement in the impact assessment. If we are to understand the impact of these rules, my simple question to the Minister is: how many people are going to end up homeless as a result of these statutory instruments? I think that is a question we should have the answer to.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that there will be some repetition of what certain noble friends, in the best sense of the word, have said. These SIs have not surprised me but I am rather depressed, in that there is an echo in them of last week’s debate. These are changes brought in ahead of our knowing what will replace current provisions, which in fact are going to continue for the time being—not that I anticipate what is coming with any great enthusiasm.
I understand that the duties reflected in the regulations are part of what it is hard not to still think of as retained EU law, now assimilated law, and that the power to amend expires in June—the Minister is nodding at that. I understand that the Government may want to avoid primary legislation, with the opportunity for greater scrutiny and amendment—I hoped that the Minister might nod at that, but he did not. Understanding this is not the same as supporting it. The Home Secretary keeps telling us that the proposals must be taken as a package, but the elements are being disaggregated.
I wrote that I hoped that one change this week would be that the Minister would not be suffering the same sore throat. Last week, some of us were not quite within distance to chuck throat pastilles across the Chamber at him.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed, in a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the Minister said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two statutory instruments.
The first instrument, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, amends the 2005 regulations of the same name. It makes a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations. The change that the Government are making, as the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. Under the 2005 regulations, a number of conditions can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. Although illegal working is a criminal offence, it does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions. This, of course, is plainly wrong, and I am glad that the Government are making this change.
The second statutory instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary to provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1999 Act. Section 95 states only that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary. This is something that I entirely support.
The problem here is that, although Section 95 of the 1999 Act states that support may be provided if an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the Act at face value and criticise the Government’s plan for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation; in reality, the Government have a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether they can support themselves. There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute so as to game the system and receive the generous, taxpayer-funded support.
It is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduced the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The Government’s asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how welcome it is to see the Government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even while they are trying to undermine it in some other areas? I have one observation, however: this change would make sense if the Government were adopting the Conservatives’ plans to deport all illegal migrants within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum. If they were implementing that policy then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. Unless the Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, there are some questions that need answering. If the Government are not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but will be withdrawing support from them, what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the Minister.
It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the Government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The Government still refuse to establish a third-country removal centre to act as a deterrent; they still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum; and they still refuse to take action to end the scam illegal industry around the asylum system. Where the Government have taken action, we will commend them. As such, I welcome these two statutory instruments, but the Government really still have a long way to go to truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and to dramatically ramp up deportations. It is my firm opinion that until that happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I remind the House had stewardship of this challenge and problem with his Government—including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whose support I welcome —until 5 July 2024. Since that date, we have tried to make some progress on the 400-plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds; with a backlog of asylum claims; with, in my view—I know this is debateable and is not the noble Lord’s view—very little action on the question of small boat crossings; and with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims.
Since July 2024, we have tried to put in place a number of steps to speed up claims for asylum, to support people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we have now done, from 400 down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe exist. It is an ongoing challenge and an ongoing process, but we are trying to do that in a context of published documents, published papers, an approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for addressing those issues. Is the intention eventually to put the 42 days into a statutory instrument? As I understand it, that is the case with the current 28 days. So if this is the new normal, it would make sense. Perhaps he will write to me if he does not want to answer that now.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The intention is to have a 42-day period. We are publishing the evaluation very shortly. If my noble friend will allow me, I would rather reflect on this with my colleague, Minister Norris, who deals directly with these matters, on the mechanism to achieve that—but I will certainly write to her on that point when I have consulted with my honourable friend.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, it is important to put on record that the Government reduced the number of migrants in asylum hotels by 19% in the year ending December 2025. Overall, asylum support costs fell by 15% in the year ending March 2025. The rules that we put in place today are designed to help us reduce those costs further by making sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system while meeting our international obligations. This sits alongside existing work which has seen illegal immigration and illegal working enforcement activity, going back to the point from my noble friend Lord Mann, reach in 2025 the highest level in British history. Those are important issues.
Under these proposals, we will tackle illegal working but we will not support those who have permission but choose not to, nor those who enter the country on a work or student visa with permission to work before claiming asylum, nor those who have been granted permission to work whose claims have been outstanding for more than 12 months, through no fault of their own. We will not support those who are non-compliant. This includes anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose. That is fair to the British taxpayer. The revocation of the duty will not result in immediate changes, as I have said, to those who will receive asylum support. It is the start of the process, and development of this framework is ongoing. In collaboration with other government departments, I will bring regular updates to the House on behalf of my noble friend on what the changes are.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised allowing asylum seekers to work. That would undermine the principle of the work visa, whereby people come to the country to work. She shakes her head; this is an honest disagreement. It would undermine those points. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked about our assessment of neighbouring countries’ asylum policy issues. I do not have the information to hand, so, if I may, I will look at that and write to him to cover any points when I have reflected on what he said and read Hansard tomorrow. With that, I beg to move.
Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That this House regrets the decision-making process that led to the need for the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026 (SI 2026/142) and the indecision and lack of transparency surrounding the proposed postponement of local elections; and affirms the importance of those elections now proceeding as scheduled.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, some time has passed since I tabled this regret Motion, and this House has debated this issue in considering the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am glad that the Government have responded to our concerns to make sure that we do not find ourselves in this situation again. I want to be clear from the outset that we are pleased that our local elections are now proceeding as scheduled, but we still regret the decision-making process that led to this U-turn being necessary.
This is a simple but important issue. The Government’s handling of these elections has created needless uncertainty, unnecessary costs and completely avoidable confusion for local authorities and their residents. They did this through a decision-making process that was unclear, inconsistent and lacking in the transparency that councils and voters rightly deserve and expect.
On 22 January, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that the Government would proceed with postponing local elections in 30 councils until May 2027. Legislation to give effect to that announcement was laid on 5 February, and councils were told to plan on that basis. Less than two weeks later, the Government changed their mind. On 16 February 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asked the Housing Minister to reverse the decision that he had just announced. This revocation order was then laid the next day.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, very briefly, and perhaps with a little surprise, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on the Conservative Front Bench: we have to regret what happened about these elections. We can also celebrate that eventually democracy won out. I am looking forward to the affected elections on 7 May, not just because the polls suggest that they, across these islands, are going to work out rather well for the Green Party.
Regret is the right term, but we might also say that what has happened—the mess of the Government’s creation in terms of these on again, off again, on again elections—has helped to highlight the weakness of our constitutional arrangements, which really cannot be described as a democracy. We have a situation in which Westminster is dictating far too much what happens on these islands, not just in terms of elections but in so many other ways. We have local councils that have enough money and power to carry out only their statutory responsibilities; that is, those dictated from Westminster.
We really need to think about so many other issues on these islands, not just because of the outcome of the Brexit referendum in 2016, but because of the slogan that people very clearly expressed then. They wanted to take back control. People do want to take back control in their local communities and to have the power and resources there; and, crucially, they should know when the elections are going to be. That should be a regular schedule that cannot be interfered with for political convenience. I commend the noble Baroness for persisting with this, because it is an issue we need to keep highlighting. We need to keep stressing that this is just one example of the way in which our current uncodified constitution, accreted over centuries of historical accident, is not meeting our needs in the 21st century.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.
There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Did I? Sorry—2021, serving all the way through to 2027, maybe even to 2028 in practice, and overlapping with unitary councils that are to be established with elections taking place in May 2027.
As I think I have demonstrated through my difficulty in trying to follow all this, these are unnecessarily extremely complicated processes for trying to move devolution forward and get us to the point where we are in a strategic authority with unitary councils. The lack of pace in a Government who are always telling us everything is happening at pace seems to have led to an unnecessarily complex situation, not least for the voters and residents of Suffolk. With local government reorganisation taking place at the same time, we are going to end up paying more for the processes of managing this overburdensome democratic situation. I hope that in the context of this debate, the Government will say that they will look very hard at ensuring that they compensate local authorities and support them in managing the delays that they have occasioned.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I want to remind the House of a contribution I made during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, but with a large degree of scepticism, because I personally experienced exactly the issue that is being complained about, at the hands of the Conservative Government. I was re-elected in 1981 to the Greater London Council, with my term due to end in 1985, and the Conservative Government—the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is the guilty party here—extended my term of office to 1986. So, it is quite clear that there is no point of principle here. I am glad that it has ended up the way it has, but to try to make out that one party does it and the other does not is totally wrong.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
Briefly, I make a plea to the Minister that she takes personal oversight of all those councils where the delays may have an impact on staff’s ability to step up and do the right things for the election. Clearly, they will all bust themselves to try to make sure everything is perfect, but it will be worth the Government making sure that they take a closer interest in all of those councils and finding down the back of the magic sofa in Marsham Street some of that spare change that they have that they can bring out occasionally if it is necessary. I do not think the teams running the elections will be waving a shroud, but if they genuinely need extra resource to be able to pay extra money to recruit people that they need at short notice, or shorter notice, the Government should be prepared to provide it. Like my colleagues on the Front Bench, I have some regrets about this, but not for the same reasons that they do.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, may I pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made just now on precedent? I do not think I have heard reference to precedent elsewhere, but there is no question but that there have been occasions when elections have been delayed. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was referring to here was the most amazing set of circumstances, whereby one week we were asked to consider an order for delays in elections on 30 local authorities, and those delays were at a point only weeks before one was heading towards notices for the election, nomination day and the like. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, two weeks later, because of an apparent legal reconsideration of circumstances, the policy was completely reversed. As far as I am aware, there is no such precedent and, tragically, we have yet to receive an apology from the Government for the confusion—and that is all it is. It is total confusion, within a period of a few weeks going from one unclear policy to another, with the net result of substantial cost.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, democracy is a frail flower, and playing around with it in the way that the Government have in the last few weeks is unacceptable. It is unacceptable not just to the public at large; we have to bear in mind the burden faced by the returning officers and their staff in the local authorities. They do a truly fantastic job in difficult circumstances. It is regularly the case that, where there are not elections in one local authority, it loans its staff to a neighbouring authority which has elections. It is not easy to find polling clerks, and what is happening is that one local authority provides the facilities for another. Here we have a position whereby people who might have been loaned to another authority are suddenly called back. There are all the other associated difficulties with calling an election, cancelling an election and then restarting an election. I will not go into them in detail, but I think most of the people in this House are only too well aware of the problems that are thrown up in the face of the EROs throughout the country by the policies that have been followed over the last few weeks.
I would have hoped that, at some stage, the Government could have apologised to the local councils, and particularly to the EROs and their staff, for the problems that they have caused, but, unfortunately, they have failed to do so. However, it is appropriate that one should identify that democracy and the way it operates need to operate on a degree of certainty, which in the last few weeks or months we have not had from this Government.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for laying the regret Motion. It is a privilege to stand in for my noble friend Lord Pack, who I know is deeply disappointed that he is not able to be in his seat today. I will approach this with the same conviction my noble friend has voiced throughout this saga: that local democracy is not a plaything for departmental convenience. Although we welcome the Government’s U-turn, the how and why of this retreat remains shrouded in a fog of administrative incompetence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this regret Motion for the Government. Before turning to the order itself, I think it is worth setting out the wider context for the local government reorganisation programme. We are on track and making good progress, including elections scheduled this May for east and west Surrey ahead of an April 2027 go live date, giving new councils stability and a clear mandate. We have also announced decisions in four further invitation areas: Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk.
These are decisions that will improve how local government works for over 6 million people, with the next tranche on track to deliver decisions for summer 2026. This demonstrates that our ambitious reorganisation programme is on track to deliver the real benefits that we intend from it, and to deliver on the biggest devolution of power, finance and control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described it, to local people in a generation.
Turning to the order itself, I add my thanks to those already expressed around the Chamber to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. My noble friend who chairs that committee has been very helpful to me in debating some of the issues that have arisen during these debates.
Changes to election timing are not taken lightly. They have been used only where there is strong justification, closely linked to supporting effective local government reorganisation. In recent years, that has included areas such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire, where adjusted timetables helped provide stability during transition to new unitary councils. That same practical rationale underpins its more recent use, including in Surrey, where reorganisation is critical to ensuring the financial viability of that area’s councils.
Of course, I recognise that concerns have been raised about local democracy. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly; people must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. But they must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are capable, sustainable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. Our responsibility is to safeguard both, and that applies to all parties in this House which are responsible in government. That balance has guided the Government’s approach throughout the reorganisation programme, including in listening carefully to concerns raised by councils themselves and considering the appropriate approach to election timing within the wider context of effective transition.
As the House will know, the Secretary of State’s original decisions followed representations from local authorities. In 30 areas, councils set out evidence on the challenges of delivering structural change alongside full ordinary elections, and the view that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave us some of the timetable, but I want to go back to before the timetable that she outlined.
On 18 December 2025, the Minister wrote to 63 councils scheduled for May 2026 elections inviting representations on whether postponement would release essential capacity, with a deadline of response by 15 January. We received 500 representations from councils, MPs, the Electoral Commission, parish councils and members of the public. Clarification letters were sent on 19 January to four councils where the position was unclear. The Secretary of State assessed each council individually, considering evidence of capacity constraints—that is, political, senior officer and electoral returning officer impact—as well as financial implications, democratic considerations and wider representations.
On 22 January, we announced the intention to postpone elections for 29 councils and allow 34 to proceed. We then received further representations from Essex County Council and Pendle Borough Council for decisions to be reconsidered. On 29 January, we confirmed the final position of 30 council elections postponed and 33 to proceed. That preceded the timetable that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, set out; I just wanted to clarify how we had got to that situation on 5 February.
Decisions were therefore taken on a case-by-case basis, informed by all those representations, and were in line with the existing precedent for aligning electoral cycles with periods of structural transition. Following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government revoked that decision. That revocation was given effect through the order now being debated in the House. The decision was taken to provide certainty for councils, candidates and voters, with the result being that all elections originally proposed for postponement will proceed in May 2026, and preparations for those elections are continuing on the restored timetable.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The Minister has not told us at all, and nor indeed does the Explanatory Memorandum tell us, the nature of the legal vulnerability that was implicit in the decision to reconsider. The fact that the decision had to be taken by an independent Minister in her own department, not by the Secretary of State, suggests that there was a significant flaw in the original decision that was made.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was coming to the legal advice and I will do so. I hope the noble Lord will be patient for a moment while I get to that part.
Looking beyond the delivery of the current local elections, the Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the concerns raised by your Lordships about the use of these powers during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, particularly the concerns expressed about postponing elections for more than one year where a council is undergoing local government reorganisation and the risk that repeated delays to elections can weaken the democratic mandate of councillors.
Against that backdrop, the Government tabled an amendment on Report to prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. That is a concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, expressed. Again, I thank opposition Peers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for supporting that amendment, which your Lordships agreed on 13 April. This demonstrates that the Government remain focused on ensuring that reorganisation is delivered in a way that is orderly, provides clarity and certainty over electoral arrangements and is capable of supporting strong local services from day one.
To support that transition, the Government are providing targeted capacity support to councils undergoing reorganisation, including up to £63 million in funding to help manage the process while continuing to deliver for residents. I hope that picks up the points about funding raised by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. I wish I could find that magic sofa in Marsham Street. If he has any advice from previous Ministers who worked there, I ask him please to tell me where it is because I would like to find it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised points about financing.
Taken together, these steps reflect a balanced approach, safeguarding local democracy, providing certainty on election timing and giving councils the tools they need to move through reorganisation successfully. For these reasons, the Government consider that the approach now in place provides clarity, accountability and a sound basis for effective transition. I am grateful to your Lordships for the care with which these issues have been considered, and I will respond to some of the points made during this short debate.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The logic of the Government’s original position clearly was not logic at all, because if the elections can now take place, as well as the reorganisation, this postponement was not required at all, was it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The postponement was done at the request of the councils concerned, which had concerns about capacity. I think some of them may still have those concerns, but we are supporting them through that process. As my noble friend Lord Davies has said, decisions have been taken in the past to postpone elections, and there is still the power to do so when necessary, but we wanted to avoid the double postponement that some of these would have caused.
On capacity, I first pay tribute to all our local elections officers and returning officers and the staff who work in their teams. They do an amazing job and, as we all know, they have a proven ability to deliver elections—sometimes a snap general election, or by-elections when they occur—and mayoral polls at very short notice. Returning officers and suppliers have been fully supported to bring plans up to date at pace, and the decision provides the certainty that councils now need to manage logistics effectively. Spending on local elections themselves is of course a matter for local councils.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I support very strongly the position that law officers’ advice to government should remain confidential, but is it absolutely clear that the advice on which the decision to revoke the postponement of the elections was taken was markedly different from the legal advice provided previously? To be blunt, there is a suspicion in many people’s minds, probably quite reasonably, that it was the imminence of a judicial review four days after the announcement that resulted in the change of government position, rather than a change in legal advice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.
I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.
I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.
In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask about the £63 million? Has this already gone out to local authorities? If it has not, when will it go out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot answer the specific question of whether it has already gone out, but we have notified local authorities of what will be coming to them. When we spoke to them about the decisions taken as a result of the reorganisation, we spoke to them about funding as well. I will write to the noble Baroness with information on whether that money has gone out the door yet.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and to the Minister for her response. However, I reject the premise of the blame game that the Government are seeking to play. The power, responsibility and ability to cancel local elections lie with the Government and the Government alone. They made the decision to cancel these elections and then they made the decision to reinstate them.
I welcome the steps now being taken, in the English devolution and so-called community empowerment Bill, to put this matter on a clearer footing for the future and to ensure that this can never happen again. Although the Government did not go quite as far as we wanted them to, I am pleased that the House’s scrutiny has brought us to this point. This is just one of many examples of your Lordships’ House demonstrating the vital and constructive role it plays as a revising Chamber.
I will not be pressing the Motion to a vote today, but I hope the Government take a clear message from it: councils must be properly supported and transparency must be the rule and not the exception for proper, functioning democracy. Before I sit down, I would like to place on record our thanks to all the local authority election staff and their returning officers, given the extra work this has caused. We know that they will deliver a safe, secure and efficient election on 7 May.