House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
May I send congratulations to Cardiff City on the team’s promotion at the weekend?
The Government are putting Wales at the heart of our clean energy mission. Just this month, Great British Energy Nuclear signed a contract with Rolls-Royce to deliver the UK’s first small modular reactors at Wylfa, creating 3,000 jobs in north Wales and thousands more across the supply chain. That is on top of the £64 million Government investment to transform the port of Port Talbot into the first floating offshore wind port in the Celtic sea.
Peter Swallow
The war in Iran has put in stark relief the importance of clean energy to the UK. From Bracknell to Bangor, we have all seen the effects on our bills. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the role that clean energy is playing in Wales and its importance to the future of Wales?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: achieving energy independence is crucial for Wales and we will be better off because of it, with more jobs created and bills brought down. That is why we have made the investments at Port Talbot and Wylfa that I mentioned. The Greens oppose the investment at Wylfa and would scrap the 3,000 jobs it will bring, and Plaid Cymru is silent on it because party members cannot agree among themselves whether they support it. Labour is the only party working to achieve energy independence, create thousands of jobs and bring down bills.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Secretary of State agree that while we commend Wales for its impressive clean energy oversupply, we should focus on the lessons that offers for upgrading infrastructure across Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Jo Stevens
Clearly, we need to continue our drive to invest more in energy infrastructure. We will deliver that energy independence only through the building of infrastructure. That is why we have made the announcements on grid, infrastructure and planning over the past few weeks.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Since coming to power, time and again this Government have failed to stand up for Welsh interests. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in mid-Wales, where Oliver Millican and his company Bute Energy would like to build a series of energy parks that encircle our military training bases, impede our farmers’ access to their land and do great damage to our local tourist industry. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to tell Oliver and Bute Energy that they are not welcome in Wales, because we are fed up of being exploited?
Jo Stevens
The simple fact is that those who oppose the building of renewable energy infrastructure risk blocking investment and job creation, while at the same time making their constituents’ bills more expensive. Upgrading and expanding the electricity network is not optional; is a national imperative and we cannot afford to delay—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, so he might want to listen to the answer.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, investing £270 billion over this Parliament. Our £50 million defence growth deal in Wales puts us front and centre to lead the way in 21st century autonomous defence technology. Alongside supporting our thriving defence sector, that will deliver thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs and help keep our country safe.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will be aware of the excellent potential of the defence sector in Wales. However, she will also be aware that the United Kingdom, under this Government, is woefully unprepared and uniquely vulnerable to global and geopolitical threats. What steps is she taking to ensure that her Department works with the Ministry of Defence in prioritising British firms in Wales over foreign suppliers so that we strengthen British capabilities and skilled Welsh jobs, rather than offshoring our security and our jobs to strategic competitors or, even worse, to our enemies?
Anna McMorrin
To be quite frank, the hypocrisy is astounding. It is—
Mr Speaker
Order. Obviously we cannot use the word “hypocrisy” against the hon. Member—he would never dream of it.
Anna McMorrin
I am incredulous that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) questions this Government’s commitment, given that the former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, is serving 10 years in prison for accepting Russian bribes. I am sure that Gill will be cheering on his close friends in Reform from the comfort of his prison cell as we approach the Senedd elections. Meanwhile, this Labour Government are getting on with continuing to act in the national interest.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee has a great interest in the future of the defence manufacturing industry in Wales, because the defence sector is such a major driver of Wales’s manufacturing economy and provides many well-paid jobs, including at General Dynamics in Oakdale in my constituency. The sector is also central to maintaining the UK’s national security, so will the Minister indicate how the Government plan to help to grow this vital sector in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for the important work that her Committee does. Our Wales defence growth deal will drive innovation and create thousands of high-skilled jobs right across Wales. While the Opposition parties hollowed out and dismantled our armed forced for 14 years, play with Putin or plot to leave NATO, this Government are taking action and investing in defence, ensuring that Wales is leading the way on future defence technology.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether to stand at the Dispatch Box or on it.
For want of a horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost. The defence of our country today rests on modern nail-makers—the small and medium-sized enterprises supplying small but vital parts for frigates and fighter jets and for our fighting men and women. The endless delay in this Labour Government’s defence investment plan means that companies have no certainty about orders, and good jobs hang in the balance, from Pembrokeshire to Prestatyn. What pressure is the Secretary of State bringing to bear on Cabinet colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to keep Welsh jobs, and indeed this United Kingdom, from being lost?
Anna McMorrin
Again, the cheek of the Conservatives! They had 14 years in power, and what did they do? They hollowed out our armed forces and defences and failed to develop any proper plan for our defence industry. This Government are taking action, delivering the biggest sustained increase in spending since the cold war. We are working at pace to finalise our defence investment plan, ensuring that it is robust and supports the development of current and future capabilities. As opposed to the Conservatives in their 14 years in power, we are investing in our defence.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
We know that the conflict in the middle east is placing pressure on the cost of living and household bills, including for those in rural communities. That is why this Government are providing £3.8 million to the Welsh Government to support households in Wales that use heating oil.
Steve Witherden
This month, the UK Labour Government formally lifted the two-child limit, benefiting nearly 70,000 children in Wales and 2,270 children in my constituency. I am enormously proud that Labour is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, while the other parties in Wales promise spending cuts and tax rises on working families. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what this policy means for the future of Wales?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is proud, as am I, of the steps that both our UK and Welsh Labour Governments have taken and are taking to support children and families with the cost of living. We have scrapped the two-child limit, provided 50 million free school meals since 2022, created 100,000 apprenticeships, and devolved £20 million to the Welsh Government to help more young people into work. Contrast Labour’s record with Plaid’s admission that it will cut child poverty budgets and plans to hike taxes on working families. Labour is the only party that is on the side of Welsh families.
Dave Doogan
In just two weeks’ time, the people of Wales will have an opportunity to elect a Government who genuinely care about child poverty in Wales—Plaid Cymru. In Scotland, the Scottish Government’s child payment has helped protect 407,000 children from UK poverty, and Plaid Cymru will do the same if it prevails on 7 May. Does the Secretary of State agree that Labour’s fag-end Administration in Wales has come to an end and Plaid Cymru’s time has come, and not a moment too soon for the people of Wales?
Jo Stevens
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been listening when I mentioned, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), that Plaid has admitted that it will cut the budget for child poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that Plaid would have to make spending cuts or raise taxes to pay for its unfunded manifesto pledges, and at some point before 7 May its leader is going to have come clean on what Plaid is going to do.
Carolyn Harris
With almost 170,000 workers in Wales benefiting from Labour’s successive increases to the national minimum wage and the living wage, families across the country—including many of my constituents—will now be better off. Despite resistance from Opposition parties, this Government have shown their commitment to tackling the cost of living crisis and supporting working people. Could the Secretary of State update the House on how those changes and the Employment Rights Act 2025 will benefit people in my constituency and across Wales?
Jo Stevens
We promised that we would be a Government for working people, and that is exactly what we have done. Our industrial strategy is set to support tens of thousands of new jobs across Wales. We have provided more employment support to help people get into work, increased the national minimum wage and the living wage, and strengthened rights and protections at work, making work pay, and making it more secure and fairer through our Employment Rights Act. New jobs have been created, alongside better jobs and higher wages, all because of this Labour Government.
Gerald Jones
Free school meals for children, our universal credit uplift, and up to £575 more on the state pension thanks to protecting the triple lock are all great examples of how Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 are helping with the cost of living. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that in future nobody gets trapped in a cycle of poverty, whether in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare or across the country?
Jo Stevens
Whether it is young people, families or pensioners, this Labour Government are determined to tackle the cost of living, both for my hon. Friend’s constituents and for all our constituents. We inherited a broken welfare system from the Conservatives that has failed people and trapped them in a cycle of poverty. We will not allow that to continue, which is why we are helping people into work through new employment programmes and increasing universal credit for those who need support. As my hon. Friend mentioned, 700,000 pensioners are being helped through the state pension rise. We are absolutely laser-focused on tackling the cost of living.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Labour has done much to address child poverty, for example, but the issues with the price of heating oil, fuel and red diesel are the same in Wales as they are in Northern Ireland, and indeed across this great United Kingdom. The price of red diesel has increased for rural farmers and for the fishing sector, as has the price of diesel for heavy goods vehicles, so what is the Minister doing to help those three sectors and to ensure that the economy can survive? If the Government do that in Wales, they will have to do it in Northern Ireland as well.
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the work that this Government have done on the cost of living. Red diesel continues to benefit from an 80% tax discount, which is saving farmers almost £300 million a year. We have already brought in a 5p fuel duty cut, which will last from this month until September. We have raised industry concerns about red diesel prices, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), has also met farming unions to discuss red diesel. We have looked at price transparency with the Competition and Markets Authority, and we are keeping everything under careful review.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Let us have some reality: it is Labour’s cost of living crisis that is hitting families across Wales. It is vital that both Governments do all it takes to ease those pressures, yet the Welsh Labour Government still choose to spend over £100 million on more politicians and tens of millions on a default 20 mph speed limit. They have set up vanity embassies abroad and spent millions on tree planting in Uganda. Those are not the priorities of struggling families. Will the Secretary of State finally condemn the wasteful spending of taxpayers’ money and admit that these schemes do not address the cost of living crisis in Wales?
Jo Stevens
I am really surprised that the hon. Member has raised the expansion of the Senedd, because the accepted rationale of those who support the expansion is that it was necessary to improve scrutiny of the Welsh Government. What a terrible indictment that is of the inadequate performance of her party, whose job it has been, as the Opposition in the Senedd for the past 27 years, to carry out that scrutiny.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Families in Wales under Labour are struggling, with inflation in bills, wages flatlining and childcare costs higher than anywhere else in the UK. Plaid Cymru’s universal childcare offer would be a game changer. With full roll-out, that universal offer will be worth more than £30,000 a child, and it has been independently assessed as affordable and deliverable. Does the Secretary of State recognise how Labour’s chronic lack of ambition is keeping families in Wales in poverty?
Jo Stevens
Plaid’s manifesto, and specifically the childcare policy to which the right hon. Lady refers, exposes the fact that Plaid is not on the side of working people in Wales and is not serious about tackling the cost of living. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that Plaid would have to make spending cuts or raise taxes to pay for its unfunded manifesto pledges. When families are dealing with the cost of living, Plaid will be hiking taxes and slashing spending on child poverty, which will make families worse off. Families in Wales deserve better than a manifesto of economic fiction.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Secretary of State’s tight-lipped quibbling is just an excuse—a shadow of an apology for what her party has failed to do, having been in power for the past 27 years. It is no surprise to anybody that voters are ready for a change. Last night’s YouGov poll shows that Plaid Cymru and Reform UK are neck and neck in Wales, with Labour trailing far behind. Will she accept that a vote for Labour on 7 May risks handing power to Reform UK, which will wreck our NHS? Will she recognise that only Plaid Cymru can stop that?
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Creating high-quality jobs across Wales is a priority for this Government. Wales is now punching above its weight in attracting investment, with 65 new foreign direct investment projects creating nearly 2,500 jobs in 2024-25. That includes more than 500 jobs in north Wales from Eren Holding, Knauf Insulation and Kellogg’s, alongside hundreds more in south Wales driven by Vishay’s £250 million semiconductor cluster investment.
Feryal Clark
One of the issues that set Labour apart from other parties is the sheer number of new jobs we are creating in priority areas such as tech, defence and our green industries in constituencies such as mine, Enfield North, as well as across Wales and the rest of the UK. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the new jobs being created in Wales and the opportunities that will provide for every family?
Jo Stevens
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the scale of the opportunities and new jobs that this Government are creating in Wales and across the UK. Whether it is 3,000 jobs in new nuclear, 5,000 jobs in floating offshore wind, 8,000 jobs in our two AI growth zones, 12,000 jobs with our historic £14 billion commitment for Welsh rail, or 25,000 jobs in our freeports and investment zones, we are delivering generational change for people in Wales.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
In Wales, the south-west and across the UK, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Labour’s jobs tax, failed welfare reforms and damaging energy policies will worsen that crisis. Does the Minister recognise that when the Labour Government’s first response to any crisis is to tax business, businesses stop hiring, and it is young people in Wales who suffer most?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Lady might like to know that unemployment in Wales is lower than the UK average and has fallen since this time last year. Youth unemployment is also lower than the UK average, which shows that our plan to boost the Welsh economy is working. We are creating jobs and helping people into them right across Wales.
Mims Davies
The bedrock of our country’s defence rests on our crucial membership of NATO. The defence industry in Wales employs more than 15,000 people in well-paid and important roles. Yet the separatist Plaid, along with the Greens, opposes full membership of this deterrent, while Reform bizarrely claims all sorts of things like blaming NATO for provoking the war in Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State stand up for NATO, for more Welsh defence jobs and for the thousands in Welsh communities who rely on growing employment in this crucial sector?
Jo Stevens
That is exactly what we are doing. I refer the hon. Lady to the earlier answers to defence questions.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
The Prime Minister has announced a generational funding commitment to Welsh rail, and a pipeline of projects valued at £14 billion. This long-term plan will transform connectivity across Wales, and we will deliver it at pace, building on the strong start of at least £445 million of investment secured at the spending review.
Mr Barros-Curtis
The UK Labour Government’s generational commitment to a £14 billion pipeline of rail projects in every part of Wales is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when two Labour Governments work together. The investment from the spending review has resulted in upgrades at Cardiff West junction, which is set to double city line services, benefiting stations in my constituency. Incredibly, Plaid has promised to tear up this much-needed plan and start again. Will the Minister update the House on the impact of Labour’s rail investment in Wales on my constituents and the people of Wales?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The UK and Welsh Labour Governments’ £14 billion plan for rail unlocks and delivers the transport network that Wales needs and deserves, bringing 12,000 jobs, boosting our economy and making journeys faster and more frequent. The plan contains 43 projects for every corner of Wales, including Burns stations in the south-east, electrification to Holyhead, the Swansea metro and the Marches line. While opposition parties want to put those plans on hold, the reality is that our two Labour Governments are working together to deliver transformational change for the people of Wales.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Labour’s Senedd manifesto makes no mention of the billions of High Speed 2 funding owed to Wales. Welsh Labour has given up on the argument, as the Secretary of State did after she took office. Her words were, “HS2 no longer exists.” Will the Minister please explain why Wales is not having fair funding for rail?
Anna McMorrin
I do not know if the hon. Member heard my answer just now: I talked about a £14 billion commitment across Wales. I am sure that she does not agree with her party’s plan to rip up that £14 billion commitment to rail, robbing Wales and our communities of a generation of rail investment, connecting communities and delivering jobs right across Wales.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
This Government are creating tens of thousands of high-quality jobs across Wales. From offshore wind in the Celtic sea and nuclear power at Wylfa, to AI growth zones, freeports, investment zones, rail enhancements, a defence growth deal and the steel strategy, our vision for economic growth in Wales is unashamedly ambitious and already delivering results.
Catherine Fookes
I was pleased to see the Secretary of State and the First Minister launch the local growth fund in Wales this week, to boost jobs and investment in local economies. That is on top of the local Wales placemaking grant funding and the UK Government’s Pride in Place funding, which will give £1.5 million to my constituency and improve six Monmouthshire towns. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how our two Labour Governments are working together to invest in our Welsh communities?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is right to say that this Labour Government’s more than half-a-billion-pound local growth fund will fuel economic growth in every corner of Wales. It will support people to start and grow their businesses, it will help people to secure new skills and jobs, it will revitalise Welsh communities, and it is a great example of what can be achieved with two Labour Governments working together.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
One way to support growth in Wales, and indeed in Shropshire, is to support the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midland Railway’s open access application to the Office of Rail and Road. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment, similar to that of the Transport Secretary, that the Government will not get in the way of this application and will allow growth in Shropshire, Wales and the border market towns?
Jo Stevens
I have to apologise to the right hon. Member. I did not hear the first part of his question, but I am very happy to chat to him afterwards. If he writes to me, I will give him a full answer.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the Speaker of the Latvian Parliament and her delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial.
In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe, and I am sure the whole House will join me in standing with our Jewish community. There is no place in British life for antisemitism.
Today my thoughts are also with the family of Stephen Lawrence, murdered in a racist attack 33 years ago today. We honour his legacy in the fight against racism and in providing opportunity for every young person.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Wood
Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?
The Prime Minister
Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. Of course, it was 33 years ago today that that awful murder took place. I am proud to have worked alongside Baroness Lawrence for many years. She is an incredibly courageous and inspiring campaigner, notwithstanding all the injustices that have been thrown at her in the last 33 years. We do celebrate St George’s day. We fly our flag, and we celebrate this country’s values of service, generosity and respect. They are English values, which is why I love this country so much. There are those who seek to divide us, who tell us that people are not welcome and try to rip our communities apart. We will never let them. We stand together united and against any challenges that we may face.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement at the Dispatch Box on 10 September last year that
“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859]
in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. Let me make it clear at the outset that the appointment itself was a mistake. It was my mistake. I have apologised to the victims for it, and I do so again. What I set out to the House on Monday is that Foreign Office officials granted security clearance to Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins was asked if he shared that decision with me, No. 10 or any other Ministers. He gave a clear answer: no. That puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me by those opposite in relation to dishonesty. I believe—[Interruption.] Last week, they were all saying that it must have been shared with me; Sir Olly was very clear yesterday it was not. I believe not sharing it was a serious error of judgment. That information should have been shared with me and other Ministers, and if it had been, Mandelson would not have been committed to post.
Mrs Badenoch
It has not put to bed anything. On 11 November 2024—long before any vetting had happened—the Prime Minister received advice from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary. The advice said the appointment would require
“the necessary security clearances…before confirming”
the Prime Minister’s choice. This advice was ignored, so how can the Prime Minister still believe that confirming Mandelson before the security clearances was following “full due process”?
The Prime Minister
This was looked into by Sir Chris Wormald. I asked him to review the appointment process, including the vetting. He confirmed—his words—“appropriate processes were followed”. The Leader of the Opposition has put great weight on the order of events. I remind her what Sir Chris said last November in evidence to the House. He said that
“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for…security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
That is what happened in this case. Sir Olly Robbins himself also gave evidence, and he said that
“as is normally the case with external appointments”
in his Department,
“the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
On top of that, Sir Olly Robbins has made it clear that the fact that developed vetting was after the announcement made, in his words, no material difference to the conclusion that was reached. I add this: what Sir Olly Robbins wrote to the Committee yesterday was this:
“When the Prime Minister informed the House that the proper process had been followed in respect of”
national security vetting,
“he was correct.”
Mrs Badenoch
It is very interesting that the Prime Minister mentions Chris Wormald. He is relying on advice given to him after Mandelson was sacked by a Cabinet Secretary the Prime Minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I am talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. He keeps mentioning Sir Olly Robbins. Sir Olly Robbins told us that the Prime Minister even sought clearance from His Majesty the King before the vetting. He had already got agreement from the US Administration—the Chair of the Select Committee said that. Mandelson was a done deal. Yesterday, Sir Olly Robbins said that the
“focus was on getting Mandelson out to Washington quickly.”
He said the Prime Minister’s team showed a “dismissive attitude” to vetting, and they even argued Peter Mandelson did not need any vetting at all. This clearly was not proper process. Why was due process not followed?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure in relation to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and to put him in place. Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday. He said that
“I didn’t feel under…pressure personally in terms of my judgment”—
his words. He went on to say:
“I…have complete confidence that…recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of”
any “pressure.” On top of that, he was asked if any “conversations…led” him
“to believe that…Mandelson needed to take up this role regardless of”
the vetting outcome. He said:
“I can say with certainty that it was never put to me that way.”
No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case. What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UKSV was not given to me before Mandelson took up his post.
Mrs Badenoch
We all heard what Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandelson failed the vetting—the same Prime Minister who was trying to get him to Washington without any vetting at all. It’s just unbelievable. The reason the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment—this is common sense, Mr Speaker—was to protect our national security. The due diligence document said that Mandelson remained on the board of the Kremlin-linked defence company Sistema long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The Prime Minister told us on Monday that he had read that due diligence report. Why did the Prime Minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington?
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with the first allegation the right hon. Lady put in that question. It was always the case that there would be developed vetting in this case. That was the understood process. That was carried out. It was reviewed by Sir Chris Wormald, and he said it was the appropriate process. Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment, whatever the sequence of developed vetting. In relation to what was in the due process, any issues of national security are dealt with in the developed vetting process. I knew that. Peter Mandelson received clearance through that process.
The problem, as I said to the House, was that I was unaware that UKSV recommended against clearance. That is information that should have been brought to my attention. It recommended, with red flags, that there should not be clearance and that it was high concern. That information should have been made available to me at the time and subsequently. The fact that it was not was a very serious error of judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is on. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. If anybody had brought that sort of name to me when I was a Secretary of State, I would have said, “No way.” The Prime Minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay—“Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Olly Robbins, a man he sacked—he keeps leaning on him. Sir Olly Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandelson was given access to highly classified briefings even before he had received clearance. That was a clear national security risk. How can the Prime Minister still maintain that full due process was followed?
The Prime Minister
As a Member of the House of Lords and Privy Counsellor, and in accordance with guidance, documentation could have been provided to him and was provided to him. STRAP material comes after developed vetting, but because he was a Privy Counsellor he could have access to other material before developed vetting.
Mrs Badenoch
This is a joke. The Prime Minister says a Member of the House of Lords. Does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? [Interruption.] I am amazed at the level of chuntering from Labour MPs. The Prime Minister promised them probity. What he has given them is cronyism and an old boys’ club, where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. It is ridiculous.
We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday. The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings. His Back Benchers know that is not fair. Even his most loyal Cabinet members will not defend it. The Prime Minister did not follow the process the then Cabinet Secretary set out in November 2024. He knows he did not follow due process, yet he told the House he had.
Mr Speaker, I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but everyone can see what has happened here. This was not due process. Everyone knows the price of misleading the House. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and go?
The Prime Minister
Let us be absolutely clear. Before Mandelson took up his post, UKSV recommended with red flags that clearance should be denied, and there was high concern. That that was not brought to my attention, or to the attention of the Foreign Secretary at the time or subsequently, is a very serious error of judgment, and anyone in my position would have lost confidence in the former permanent secretary. The Leader of the Opposition claimed on Friday that Mandelson could not have been cleared against security advice, but she was wrong about that. She said that Ministers must have been told, but she was wrong about that. She claimed there was deliberate dishonesty, but she was wrong about that—wrong, wrong, wrong. She rushed to judgment, as she always does, just like with the Iran war. I was elected by the British people because the Opposition let the country down for 14 long years. [Interruption.] Whatever she says—whatever noise they make—nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Opposition should hang their heads in shame at the state they left our NHS in. I am proud that this Labour Government are fixing our NHS across the country, with waiting lists at their lowest in three years, the best A&E waiting times in five years, the fastest ambulance response times in half a decade, and cancer patients getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. Lots done, more to do. That is why we are delivering neighbourhood health centres in every community to speed up care. We did that because we invested. What did the Opposition do? They broke the NHS, and then opposed the investment that we put in.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the comments of the Prime Minister on our wonderful late Queen. I agree with him on the need to confront antisemitism wherever it is in our society, and on remembering Stephen Lawrence and his family.
I am sure many of us in this House were shocked by the revelations from Olly Robbins yesterday. He said that No. 10 told him to find a plum job for Matthew Doyle, another Labour crony who is friends with a convicted sex offender. The Prime Minister was asked on Monday whether No. 10 had proposed any political appointments other than Mandelson. Perhaps the past few hours have jogged his memory. Will he confirm today whether he knew that his office was lobbying for a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, and whether they were doing it on his authority?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service, both for me as Prime Minister and for other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are very often conversations about other roles they may want to apply for. In this case, nothing came of it.
Ed Davey
The House and the public watching will note that the Prime Minister failed to answer my questions.
The chaos in this Government must not stop us focusing on the cost of living crisis hitting our country. President Trump’s idiotic war with Iran has already pushed up inflation in our country to 3.3%, and the Prime Minister knows there is far worse to come for the British people from here on in. They need help now. Will the Prime Minister follow other countries and use the Treasury’s extra revenue from higher fuel prices to cut rail and bus fares, and slash prices at the pump by 12p a litre?
The Prime Minister
Everybody can see that the conflict is causing serious economic damage in this country and countries around the world. The right hon. Member’s claim of a windfall for the Government is politically misleading and economically illiterate.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We inherited a housing crisis in London, including record numbers of children living in temporary accommodation, because the Conservatives failed to build the homes that we need. We are building those homes, and I am looking forward to next week, when Labour will deliver more security for tenants, through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I commend Hackney council, my hon. Friend’s council, on getting on with building affordable homes. What a stark contrast to the Green party, which has opposed 42,000 new homes across the capital and counting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Mr Fenton-Glynn, I am glad you have found your feet, because I could hear you shouting earlier. We will not be doing that next week. I call Dr Ellie Chowns.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?
The Prime Minister
Let me correct what the hon. Lady said. There was no dismissive attitude to developed vetting. I knew that the post was subject to developed vetting, and it was subject to developed vetting. What did not happen was me being told of the UKSV recommendation. That was a serious error of judgment. Had I been told, the appointment would not have gone ahead.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Scotland deserves safer streets and more visible policing. In England and Wales, Labour has put 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers on our streets, delivering a named police officer for every neighbourhood. The SNP Government have already had two decades and record funding to invest in public services. If they knew how to do it, they would have done it by now, but they have not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me say that Jonathan Powell is doing an excellent job for this Government. He is respected across the world, and is playing a significant part in dealing with the huge challenges that we face.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Clearly, the middle east conflict is placing real pressure on farmers; that is why it is important that we de-escalate. Today, the UK is hosting military planners, as work continues with France and other countries to help get the strait of Hormuz open, once the ceasefire holds. We have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to look more closely at fertiliser and red diesel to ensure that farmers are getting a fair deal, and we are overhauling fertiliser regulations to diversify supply. On my hon. Friend’s particular case, we have also taken the decision to open the carbon dioxide plant on Teesside to protect supplies, because we will always act to secure our economy.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I have set out in terms what I was not told in relation to the process. It is clearly information that I should have been given. A UKSV recommendation with a double red flag should have been brought to my attention; it was a serious error of judgment that it was not. Anyone in my position would have taken exactly the decision that I took in relation to the permanent secretary.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are tackling the injustice of leasehold and fixing building safety, as my hon. Friend rightly highlighted. I thank her for campaigning on this over many years. We are capping ground rents at £250 to cut costs for almost 4 million leasehold properties. We are investing over £5 billion to remove dangerous cladding, including over £1 billion for social housing. In Lewisham and across the country, I am determined that everyone should have a safe and secure home.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he will appreciate, there is a live police investigation, and I know that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum is looking closely at the case; obviously, I can provide the hon. Member with any further information as that emerges. I reassure him that all accommodation must meet contractual standards, and the Home Office works with the police to manage all sites safely. Local authorities are consulted prior to any accommodation being procured and can object to any proposal. When there is strong evidence that a site is not suitable, it will not be proceeded with.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear about the new businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. Our high streets strategy, backed by £301 million, will set out further plans to rejuvenate high streets across the country. We are putting power into the hands of local communities through our Pride in Place scheme, including £20 million for Stanley South in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is only possible because his community has a hard-working Labour MP and a Labour Government.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Some six months ago in this House, I mentioned a little boy called Teddy Johnson. Sadly, Teddy will be forever seven, because he died last week from metachromatic leukodystrophy. MLD is a horrendous condition that stole Teddy’s ability to walk, talk and even smile. What makes this tragedy more profound is that here in the UK, we have a treatment—we have a cure—but it is only effective if the condition is identified by a simple heel prick at birth and treated immediately, because when symptoms appear, it is too late. Just a few weeks ago, the UK National Screening Committee recommended the condition remain excluded from the heel prick. We have a treatment and we have a commissioned service in the Royal Manchester children’s hospital, yet children like Teddy are still dying prematurely. Despite all that is going on in the world, I know that the Prime Minister is in politics to make a change. Prime Minister, in Teddy’s memory and in the memory of all those who have died prematurely: make the change and add MLD to the simple heel prick test.
The Prime Minister
I remember the hon. Lady raising Teddy’s case very well. I am very saddened to hear of his passing, and my thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and his loved ones. I will do precisely as she asks: I will make sure that we look at this again in the light of the information that she has given to me in the course of this session.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
May I start by wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I will make sure that Ministers meet my hon. Friend to hear more detail about his particular proposal. We are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes this Parliament. We are prioritising the development of brownfield sites, ensuring that the default answer to brownfield proposals is a yes. We will go further and faster now that our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is law, despite being opposed by every Opposition party—a coalition of blockers.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Prime Minister may be aware that in December, for the first time in over three decades, Defence Ministers met the families of those killed in the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. The Ministry of Defence promised “ongoing dialogue” with them. Is he also aware that, despite receiving pages of new evidence presented at that meeting that show the Chinook was not airworthy, the MOD chose not to keep its word and contacted instead the Press Association, saying that no new evidence had been presented about the cause of the crash? The Prime Minister knows, because the families have written to him, as the MOD knows too, that the families are seeking not a public inquiry into the cause of the crash, but to know the reason why their loved ones were placed on board an aircraft which, according to the MOD’s own test pilots and engineers, was described as “positively dangerous”, “unairworthy” and “not to be relied on in any way whatsoever”? Will he agree to meet the families, to rebuild trust and to offer the promised dialogue that the MOD clearly finds so difficult to achieve?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case; I will make sure that is looked at again in the light of what she has said, and that the families get the relevant meeting.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her long record of campaigning against child poverty? Child poverty stifles opportunity, it makes it harder for kids to get on in life and we in this Government will not stand by. This is a moral mission for this Government. We will make sure that no child or family is left behind, through lifting the two-child cap, expanding free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and extending free childcare. More than 6,000 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency alone will benefit from the action that we are taking. And what would the Tories and Reform do? They would plunge those children straight back into poverty. That is a disgrace.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Today, vigils are being held across Westminster for the 22 women who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, and I think we are privileged to say that some of those extraordinarily brave women are in the Gallery this afternoon. When I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, she promised to take action and not just commit words, so will the Prime Minister today commit to the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s plan to fund lobular breast cancer?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the vigils and the campaign, and I acknowledge those who are here in the Gallery today. I will make sure that this is looked at to see what further we can do, and that any relevant meetings are set up.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I know that the site is of huge significance to the people of York, and I understand that the site is under offer. Ministers are happy to work with the council and my hon. Friend to find the right deal for the site, taking into account the points she has made.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Every day that the Prime Minister fails to act on or even acknowledge Pakistani grooming gangs that rape and torture vulnerable white girls, more victims continue to suffer. Instead of spending his energy forcing friends of paedophiles into top jobs, why not use that energy to stop this national disgrace?
The Prime Minister
I spent many years prosecuting paedophiles who are now in prison, so I really do not need lectures from Reform about this.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
In 2022, my constituent Masi Sibanda dropped her 14-month-old son Noah off at nursery, like any other day. Tragically, it would be the last time Masi would see her son alive. A staff member at the Fairytales nursery tried to get him to sleep. When Noah resisted, she covered his face with a thick blanket and used her leg to pin him down. The pressure applied to his tiny body was so extreme that it ruptured his colon. No parent should have to endure such unimaginable loss. The sentencing has taken place. Will the PM meet Masi to discuss how we can ensure that tragedies like this never happen again?
The Prime Minister
The case my hon. Friend raises is utterly tragic, and as she went through those details, I think we all will have felt as I do: it is impossible to fathom how the family must feel in relation to this awful and tragic case. I will make sure that all the necessary meetings are set up in the way that she has asked for.
Government Procurement Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government procurement strategy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Every year this country spends around £400 billion of taxpayers’ money on procurement—and, if we are honest, under the current complex system, we do not always spend it as wisely as we could. That is why just before the Easter recess I announced a major package of reforms to the procurement system, on which I am grateful to have the chance to update the House today. Behind these reforms are three principles: first, that procurement should do much more to protect national security and support British businesses; secondly, that it should deliver a fairer economy; and, thirdly, that it should be simpler, fairer, and open doors to small businesses and charities. Let me address those principles in turn.
This Government believe it matters where things are made and who makes them, so we will issue new guidance for all Government Departments to make use of the national security exemptions in the Procurement Act 2023 to direct procurement to serve the national interest. We will start with four sectors critical to our national security: steel, shipbuilding, energy independence and AI. That will give a clear sign that this Labour Government will back British business, and will use both the weight of our procurement budget and the powers in the Procurement Act to do so. We will also take two further steps to back British businesses. First, Government Departments will now be required to confirm whether prime contractors are using UK steel, and if they are not doing so, they will have to explain why. We will also develop a new shipbuilding framework to restrict Government contracts to British firms where this supports our national security interests.
The second principle of these reforms is that procurement should build a fairer economy, and the truth is that for decades, under successive Governments, we have had a policy that essentially adds up to outsourcing by default. Under this Labour Government, the age of outsourcing will end. We will, in line with our manifesto, introduce a public interest test, which will apply to all Government Departments. They will now be required to assess whether a service can be delivered more effectively in-house, and if it cannot, a clear explanation must be published. Departments will also for the first time be required to publish robust insourcing strategies, setting out how, over the medium term, they will build the capacity to make the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation a reality. This marks a step change in how and who our public services are run by and for, and I am proud that this Labour Government are delivering it.
We will also strengthen the role of social value in procurement. Too often, this has become a mere tick-box exercise and a barrier, not an opportunity, for SMEs and start-ups. Working with trade unions, businesses and others, we will create a new definition of social value that will underpin all Government procurement.
The third principle of these reforms is to make the procurement system simpler and fairer. I have heard too many times how the complexity, duplication and endless form-filling of the current system is among the biggest barriers to SMEs and charities, so we will undertake a rapid review of all existing requirements in the procurement system, and we will see which burdens and duplications can be removed. If they are not essential, we will scrap them. We will enforce a “tell us once” principle—
Mr Speaker
No, you do not look at the clock. You look at me, and you sit down. Ministers have three minutes for responses to urgent questions. I do not know who may have told you differently; there is something wrong in the advice being given. It is three minutes. I presume you are now going to conclude immediately.
Chris Ward
Yes. My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was told it was five minutes, but I completely apologise.
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, please sit down—do not remain standing at the Dispatch Box. I am sorry that you were told five minutes, but I think that Ministers should know by now how long they get for a statement or a UQ. It is becoming an impossible situation, where Ministers try to change the rules of the House. These are not my rules; they are the rules of the Back Benches. Please adhere to them.
Chris Ward
I can only apologise, Mr Speaker.
In conclusion, these reforms will back British businesses and workers, build a fair economy, and simplify and open up our Government procurement system. There is still much to do, but this is a big step forward and I am grateful to have had the chance to set it out to the House today.
Leigh Ingham
Through a change in procurement policy that is more focused on backing British businesses, investing in Britain to help secure thousands of good, unionised jobs, and remaining community-focused, the Government will make sure that local people are reaping the full rewards from this move. I welcome it, and I welcome the Minister’s response to my urgent question. Could he please outline the first steps to deliver this procurement reform, and what it will mean for manufacturers in my constituency and in constituencies around the UK?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend has raised the importance of changing the procurement rules with me a number of times—she is a tremendous champion on this. On next steps, the Cabinet Office is working on new guidance that we will put before the House very shortly—I hope before the summer recess—which will make flesh the commitments I have made today. As I say, it has three big principles behind it: backing British businesses, creating a fairer economy and making the system simpler and fairer for all.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today.
The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office?
On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union?
Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Member for those questions—let me try to answer a few of them.
First, on SMEs and Department spend, as I say, part of the aim of this package is to support SMEs and ensure that they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know that there was a lot going on, but we have published them; they are there. They show an ambitious step forward. I believe that around £7 billion of Government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes. I am proud of what we are doing; it is the first time that the Government have done it. We have helped drive that through and have worked hard on that.
The hon. Member asked about “Buy European”. That is not in conflict with any of our international agreements or, obviously, with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading on, and we work closely on that. At the heart of this package is a recognition that we need to use our procurement budget within international law and international regulations to do more to support our industries. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can get cross-party support.
The hon. Member asked about social value. Again, I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I am not changing that; what I am saying is that I am changing the definition of social value so that it does more to support communities and to ensure that it really works, so there is no change on that.
The hon. Member asked me a couple of specific questions about national security. I will get back to him if that is okay, but in general terms, I hope that we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act 2023 was passed with cross-party support and was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to ensure that we do much more with that budget to support Britain.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s move to use the £400 billion of public procurement—almost one eighth of British GDP—in the interests of the British people and the British economy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has often heard that a Government contract is worth more than a Government grant to the start-ups and spin-outs that are so important to our economy. Will the Minister confirm that this approach will be joined up with our strategy for sovereign capability, so that we do not find ourselves once again in the position where the Ministry of Defence awards a contract without competition to a large US artificial intelligence company, as happened with Palantir, when there are UK companies that are desperate for that kind of investment?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend brings a huge level of expertise and background experience to the issue. I reassure her that part of the package that I announced before Easter is aimed at helping our sovereign AI industry and our science and technology industries, and boosting start-ups. In the time that I have been doing this job, a lot of the stories that I have heard are about how the procurement rules work fine for companies that have a large procurement department to try to win the contracts, but they are not so good for start-ups or voluntary businesses that are trying to win their way into Government contracts. We should be doing much more to help those companies and, yes, we are joining this up across Government, including through the industrial strategy and the steel strategy that I spoke about earlier.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We need to do far more to back British small businesses through public procurement, both to boost growth and to ensure our national security. Public procurement amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds a year. The Procurement Act was meant to ensure that more of that money reached British small businesses, but in practice many report that it has made things worse. Payment rules are being flouted by middlemen who face no consequences, suppliers who complain are threatened with losing future work and bad debts are mounting. Public money is disappearing into a vacuum and there is a security risk. There are businesses that are asking, “What is the point of legislation that rogue traders can ignore with complete impunity, while loyal British SMEs are being pushed out of the market they built?” Does the Minister agree that the target for Government spending with small businesses should be far higher than the current level? Will he explain when the payment reporting transparency will implemented?
Chris Ward
I basically agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the procurement system and how it does not do what it should do. As I say, £400 billion of taxpayer money is being spent. We need to ensure, as far as we can, that every pound that is spent supports British industry, supports jobs and delivers fairness, and it must also support SMEs. The Procurement Act made progress towards helping SMEs, but it does not go far enough. It is not the job of this Government to defend the status quo; it is the job of this Government to change it, so we will do that. I will come back to her on the specific point about payment thresholds.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), my Staffordshire neighbour, on securing this urgent question. The Government are taking the right steps towards this procurement strategy, but there is a lot more that could be done if they wanted to truly buy British, back British and build British. That could start with the Government Car Service. The Minister will know from the answers that he has sent to my written parliamentary questions that one third of the Government Car Service uses foreign cars, and that police services in this country use foreign-made cars. He will know that we import bricks to build houses that are paid for by Homes England, which is funded by taxpayers. Will he look at the easy wins that he can make by looking at how the Government are a consumer of products? He could reorientate that spend towards British companies this week.
Chris Ward
There are few greater champions of the buy British agenda than my hon. Friend, although there are a few of us in the Government as well. We are trying to make progress on that agenda. What I am setting out today is what I can do with Government guidance and by using the exemptions that already exist in national security restrictions. We have not jumped to legislation; I am trying to use the powers that I have. The point that he is making is about a bigger agenda that I hope we can get to, in order to drive forward more support for British industry. This is the start of it but it is not the end, and we will work with him on doing that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Too often consumers buy products that, when they get to examine them, turn out to have been manufactured in places like China. What safeguards do the Government have in their new procurement strategy to ensure that there are no concealed foreign supply chain components in the contracts that they intend to award? Why are the SMEs—or any companies—that are bidding having to demonstrate trade union recognition if they might have a workforce that do not require that?
Chris Ward
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have robust processes in place on supply chains, which the Department for Business and Trade leads on. The announcement that I made before Easter does not change that; the strategy sticks with the existing protections that we have under the Procurement Act regulations. What I am talking about here is how we can use those powers to direct Departments and use Government buying power to do more.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about union recognition, I am sorry but I missed the very end of his question. There is nothing in the strategy that changes union recognition within the procurement system—that can already be weighted within the social value requirement—but it takes an important step on insourcing for Government Departments. I am incredibly proud that this Government are doing that and it is part of the manifesto on which we were elected.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the changes, which are a welcome vote of confidence in UK business and industry. I welcome the rapid review of existing requirements that we know can slow down the procurement process, leading to frustration and inefficiencies all around. Ahead of International Workers’ Memorial Day, will he commit to having inclusive personal protective equipment as a specification in any new public sector procurement contract, and lead the way on improving workplace safety?
Chris Ward
This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised this issue and we have met to discuss it. She is championing this important matter that addresses an inequity that is felt by many workers. The Cabinet Office is working on this point. At the moment, our view is that mandation is not the right way forward and that we can work with industry to try to roll this out. Equalities law already offers protections and should ensure that such PPE is delivered, but I accept that that is not always happening—my hon. Friend has made that case incredibly powerfully—and I am keen to keep working with her, the GMB and others on this issue.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Some £400 billion was spent on public procurement last year, so I would like to ask the Minister a question that I asked his predecessor over a year ago, which she was unable to answer then: what is the Government’s precise savings target from that budget?
Chris Ward
What an excellent question! I am afraid that I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the answer—[Interruption.] None of the measures in the announcement that I have made require additional Treasury funding—they are within existing budgets—but the point that he makes is a good one, so I will come back to him, if that is okay.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bedworth company Toye, Kenning and Spencer on its proud history of ribbon weaving and supplying ribbons for insignia and medals to the Queen, the King and the Government for many years? Will he tell me how the procurement strategy will help other local manufacturers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
Chris Ward
I certainly can. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that company. It is exactly the kind of British company that we want to help and back, and such communities should have a real stake in how procurement money is used. I hope that we can do more on that, and I am happy to take up this specific point and this specific company with her.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
On the Business and Trade Committee, we have heard time and again that if we want to transform the economic health of small and medium-sized enterprises, we need to direct a greater share of public procurement towards them. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that we are “stuck in a rut” at 20% of spending going to SMEs. What is the Minister doing to join up the approach across Whitehall to ensure that a greater amount of spending goes to SMEs?
Chris Ward
I agree that more money from the procurement budget should be going to SMEs, and we are already taking steps to do that. We have announced powers so that contracts can be reserved in local communities and we have increased the amount of Government spending. As I have said, the spending targets across Whitehall mean that for the first time over £7 billion of Government money will now go to SMEs. I am working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses and lots of small businesses on that. I thank the FSB and others because the reforms announced today, which are aimed at supporting SMEs and voluntary sector organisations, have been designed in collaboration with them. They know that the system is not working, just as I know it is not working, and we need to get more money down to those businesses. So we have done a bit—we have done a lot of stuff—but there is a lot more do to, and the strategy is part of that.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As the Member for Amber Valley, I represent Denby Pottery, which sadly is in administration and I am desperately trying to save it. It is a joy in this House to use crockery made in the UK, and I welcome the Minister’s recent announcement on procurement, but I have written to ask him to go further by including ceramics—I look forward to receiving his response in due course. May I take this opportunity to repeat my request so that we do not lose a whole sector by degree?
Chris Ward
I appreciate how important Denby Pottery is to my hon. Friend’s constituency and how difficult it will be for workers there at the moment. I understand that Government officials have been working with Denby Pottery in recent weeks to ensure that support is in place as the administration process unfolds, and I hope that will support the workers affected as much as possible. I think she will have some support from Members on the Bench behind her on the broader point about the ceramics industry. In this package I have announced that we will look at the four sectors that are immediately critical to national security using the existing powers we have. That is not where I want to stop, but it is what I can do at the moment. I want to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to try to do so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister is right to try to support small businesses by cutting red tape, but will he explain why, while he is saying this at the Dispatch Box, another part of Government is requiring any business seeking a Government contract to demonstrate trade union recognition? Does he accept that that is completely irrelevant as to whether a business provides a good service and good value for money? Does he appreciate that that only imposes additional costs on businesses?
Chris Ward
Trade union rights are not inconsistent with what I am setting out. I am sorry, but I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, because there is no requirement to have trade union recognition in Government contracts in the procurement system. I am not changing that or how that plays out; I am trying to simplify the system and remove burdens where I can. I am trying to look at the procurement system from start to finish, strip out all the duplication and erroneous stuff that has crept in and made it like a Christmas tree over time, and make it simpler and fairer. That will happen at the same time as ensuring that we deliver the generation of insourcing that this Government were elected to do, which can bring to an end decades of outsourcing by default.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. An important aspect of Government spending is food procurement in the NHS, on which £500 million is spent every year in England alone. May I stress to the Government that we must ensure that we back British farming and British food and ensure that the processes we are undertaking support our British farmers?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a link between food security, national security and economic security, which is an increasingly important part. The reforms that we have announced deal, in the first instance, with the four sectors that we feel are the most immediately available with the powers we have, but that is not where we want to end. I am happy to work with him, the farming industry and others to see what more we can do.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I appreciate much of the statement that the Minister has made regarding procurement. I will deflect his attention to textile procurement, especially as the Ministry of Defence has contracted £37 million-worth of military gear to foreign factories, including in China. Some £23 million-worth of NHS personal protective equipment is manufactured abroad. All the while, my constituency has factories and a workforce, and we are ready. We are suffering with a cost of living crisis, so can I ask the Minister to consider onshoring textile procurement?
Chris Ward
Yes, the hon. Gentleman can. As he can clearly detect from what I am trying to say, the thrust is that I want to do more to support British businesses and industries, and I want to ensure that we are doing everything we can within the existing powers to do that. We have set out four sectors in which we feel we can do that straightaway, and I am sure there are others that we can look at. I am happy to work with him on that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Like me, many in Portsmouth will welcome today’s announcement, particularly the new shipbuilding framework and the commitment to reward bids that deliver local jobs and skills. Will the Minister outline today—and meet me to discuss—how these reforms will help to ensure that cities such as Portsmouth, from which shipbuilding was removed by the Tories, can once again share in defence, maritime and energy infrastructure, and benefit from AI procurement opportunities?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously the shipbuilding industry is incredibly important for her constituency and for others around the country, and specific points in this package are designed to support that. To re-emphasise, we will work with the National Shipbuilding Office to try to work on a specific framework to ensure that we can direct procurement to British companies to deliver shipbuilding. For too long that has not happened, and we have seen in recent weeks and months the importance of having a sovereign capacity to do that. Portsmouth is a fine place to try to do so, as are other places around the country—I should not get too far into that. That is one of the reasons we picked shipbuilding early on and why we will work with the NSO to try to do that, and I am happy to meet with my hon. Friend.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
PVL is a SME in Burgess Hill that fabricates high-visibility livery, supplying 80% of police vehicles and 40% of ambulances. It is being hammered by the rules enacted in the Procurement Act 2023. Converters are the middlemen who take a regular vehicle and turn it into an emergency appliance. The 30-day payment terms set out in the Act are not enforceable. New tendering requirements cost time and money, but converters are under no obligation to use approved suppliers, and converters often go out of business owing money to the rest of the supply chain. That is a colossal waste of public sector money. Will the Minister agree to visit PVL, which is just over the border from his constituency, so that we can discuss these challenges?
Chris Ward
It is always nice to have a kind invitation to come up the road to Burgess Hill. The hon. Lady raises a really good point. I do not know the specifics of the company, but she raises exactly the kind of case that we should be trying to support. I am happy to meet, and if she sends me the details of the company, I will look into that.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. For many years it has seemed to me that while our European partners have been able to have significant sovereign procurement programmes, we have so often tied ourselves up in knots and been unable to do the same. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) slightly gazumped me with his question. The Government have a commitment to ensure that half of all food purchased across the public sector is locally produced or certified, so what can we do to connect the Minister’s plans with cutting out the middleman and ensuring that farm-gate produce is essential to our procurement programme?
Chris Ward
Building on that previous point, it is really important that we do as much as we can to support British farming and have a national plan for food security. I am happy to take up the specifics and to work with my hon. Friend and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is there an expectation that the procurement principles enunciated today will be followed through with local authorities? If so, can we expect to see an end to the scandal of bodies such as Transport for London buying Chinese buses, rather than British-made buses? Are we going to do anything about that?
Chris Ward
I would very much like to do so. I have spoken with the Department for Transport about this. This is a broader issue about how we work with regional authorities and within our system of devolution, because that is where the power lies for some of these decisions. I am working with the Department for Transport on this matter, and I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman updated on it.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. Businesses in my constituency—a manufacturing town—strongly welcome this new approach, and we should be unashamedly proud to back our British businesses. Can the Minister reassure me that he is speaking to small businesses, local authorities and our trade union colleagues on defining social value so that we get this right and truly and proudly back British businesses for the future?
Chris Ward
Absolutely. We should be much prouder, as a Government and as a political party, about supporting British businesses and local communities. That is what I am trying to do with this statement. On working with others, I have been working on this matter for many months, as did my predecessor—we have worked on this matter with trade unions, businesses, voluntary sector groups and charities. The proposals that I have brought forward are an amalgam, but they are not the end of the road. Work will be done with the unions, businesses and so on to try to get the guidance right and put these through. I should also say that one of the reasons I am particularly proud of some of this work is that it has been welcomed both by trade unions and by businesses. It is not often that that happens these days, and I am particularly pleased that we have managed to achieve it.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I also welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question and the proposal to go British first in our procurement strategy, with over £400 billion spent per year. The Minister is no doubt aware that Members across this House, including myself, have repeatedly raised concerns about Palantir’s ethics, its record of complicity in human rights abuses, including the genocide in Gaza, and the way it has secured extremely large public contracts here in the UK. Can he explain how awarding hundreds of millions of pounds—in many instances with no full, open tender process—to a single US surveillance and technology firm, which over the weekend released a dystopian manifesto for world domination, is compatible with a modern procurement strategy that claims to have transparency, value for money and the public interest at its heart?
Chris Ward
The hon. Member is right to say that part of what I am trying to do is support British businesses and reduce our reliance on others. On his specific point about Palantir, the two contracts to which he refers are NHS and Ministry of Defence-led contracts, so his questions are probably best directed at those Departments. If he wants to write to me, I am happy to try to pick that up as well, but they are NHS and MOD contracts. They did go through the procurement process, but those were the lead Departments.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Minister has said about the principles behind how we will use £400 billion of Government procurement to back companies up and down this country, and the workers behind them, by buying British. However, of course, many billions of pounds more are spent across the wider public sector, including by local authorities, the NHS and the police. Can the Minister tell me more about what he will be doing to bring those other bits of the public sector on board as he develops this process, especially to back the automotive trade?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To clarify, the guidance that we are bringing forward and the reforms that I am talking about today will apply to Government Departments, not to the broader public sector. That is because Ministers and the Government do not have the power to direct beyond Government through mere guidance—I would need primary legislation to do so. That is something we are pushing very hard on, and I hope that legislation will come forward in a future Session. However, what I hope everybody notes, including the market and local authorities, is that the reforms I am announcing today are the reforms that I want to see rolled out across the public sector, working with local authorities as well. We want to test and learn in Government and roll out these reforms more widely, but that would require primary legislation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question about Northern Ireland. In light of the recent Public Accounts Committee report that has highlighted the fragmented nature of procurement in Northern Ireland, with nine separate centres of procurement expertise, what steps can he take to ensure that SMEs, which he mentioned earlier, are not further disadvantaged by conflicting administrative requirements across those bodies? How will the promised Tell Us Once digital platform be successfully integrated with Northern Ireland’s existing eTendersNI system to prevent duplication of the bureaucratic burden on small firms that are struggling?
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman raises a really good point. As I said, one of the three principles behind this strategy is to reduce duplication, reduce burdens and simplify the system. My feeling in general is that over the years, the people who have held my job have added more and more bits to the Christmas tree, making it more and more unwieldy, and I want to try to strip that back. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask him to write to me about his specific points, and I will pick them up. I am very happy to meet him to discuss those points as well.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), on securing this urgent question.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, we make excellent British bricks at Ibstock in Chesterton, and I draw the Minister’s attention to my ten-minute rule Bill on British bricks. Will he take the opportunity to confirm today that the changes he has outlined will result in a “British brick first” approach to public contracts as we build the homes, community centres, schools and hospitals that our communities desperately need?
Chris Ward
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised an important issue, one that is obviously incredibly important to his constituency and many others. As I say, we are starting with the four industries I have set out today, but we will look at others going forward, and I would be happy to talk with him and see what more we can do in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. It is common sense that we use the Government’s procurement power to support British jobs, but sadly that common sense is lacking in Scotland, where the Scottish Government are buying ferries from Poland, Turkey and China. Yesterday, Unite highlighted that the Scottish Government have given a grant to private bus companies in Scotland to buy 166 buses from China; meanwhile, publicly owned Lothian Buses is using its share of the grant to buy buses from the fantastic Alexander Dennis Ltd. Does the Minister join me in hoping that on 7 May, Scotland will vote Labour to elect a Government who put British jobs first?
I have a Fox’s Burton’s Companies UK biscuit factory in my constituency, which makes a delicacy known as the Jammie Dodger biscuit. Will this change make it more likely that when I next visit the Minister’s Department, Jammie Dodger biscuits will be available to me?
Chris Ward
I have to say that of all the questions I was mulling over when I was going through this, the impact on Jammie Dodgers was not top of my list, but maybe it should have been—I will think about that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about how the Scottish Government have not used their procurement powers well enough over the years, and the fiascos he highlighted demonstrate that. It is a shame that no one from the SNP is in the Chamber to hear what he says, but it is good that Labour MPs are present to make the case for doing more to support jobs in Scotland.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). Can the Minister tell the House how this Labour Government’s reforms to public procurement will unlock hundreds of millions of pounds for our SMEs and, in particular, how they will benefit SMEs in Harlow?
In response to other hon. Friends, the Minister mentioned food security. Sadly, we do not make Jammie Dodgers in Harlow—maybe we can have a conversation about that—but although it is important that we support our farming industry, I also draw to the Minister’s attention the Lea Valley growers in my constituency, who are glasshouse growers, and Wright’s Flour, which is our flour mill.
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he has raised a number of points. He talked about supporting SMEs, which is incredibly important to what the Government are trying to do more broadly, and specifically to what these reforms are trying to do.
If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to point out that we should do more to support the voluntary sector. In my opinion, the charitable sector does not get a fair enough crack at this, and the system is weighted against it. In particular, I have in mind a visit I made to a women’s centre in my constituency, in Brighton, a fantastic charity that has been doing amazing work for a long time. It told me that it was spending £30,000 to £35,000 on a procurement process, having to divert resources that should be used to support people in real need in order to compete in a procurement process that is stacked against it because the big companies and the big providers have the money and expertise they need. We cannot defend that kind of status quo, and I will not do so, which is why we are trying to introduce this strategy.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office was asked several times about trade union requirements in public procurement contracts, yet Hansard records him as saying on 4 December that
“The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1144.]
Could I seek your guidance as to how I could ask the Minister to confirm those two points together?
Chris Ward
I would just point out that an opportunity is not a requirement. The question I was being posed was about a requirement to recognise trade unions—that is not the same as an opportunity to reflect that within the system. That is the difference between those statements, and as I have said, nothing in the strategy changes the status of trade unions within the procurement system. What it does is deliver on our really important manifesto commitment to end the age of outsourcing and bring more work in-house.
Pension Schemes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish to provide the House with an important update on key pension, contractual and commercial decisions.
The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable, and they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. For those principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and a refusal to accept second best. We recognise that for our public servants, these services are the foundation of their financial security. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests. It is in that context that I want to give the first update to the House on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme.
Following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in Capita’s ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion, I am announcing today that I have terminated the new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita. Capita had an 18-month planning window to prepare for the transition. It failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones and that IT automation, ultimately issuing formal correspondence to reaffirm the mandatory requirements. To ensure members are protected, we will ensure continuity of the existing contract, but let the message be clear: I will not and we will not tolerate delivery failure from contracted partners. Public services require high-quality delivery, and public money should not be used to fund performance that falls short of the standards we expect.
I also want to address problems in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory. We are investigating the respective liabilities for those failures as between Capita and MyCSP. Given the criticality of these services, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary and I discussed transition with the chief executive officer of Capita. We sought and were given explicit personal assurances that the transition would be handled with the utmost care and that any backlogs would be managed effectively. I am sorry to say that those assurances have not been met.
It is clear in any event that the delivery of the service to civil servants since the transfer on 1 December last year has fallen far short of the required standard. The delays that civil servants have faced in accessing their civil service pensions are unacceptable, especially in view of their many years of dedicated public service. That is why I established a specialist pensions recovery taskforce, led by the second permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Angela MacDonald, to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. That intervention, which includes a circa 140-person Government surge team to bolster operational capacity, is delivering results, including helping Capita to clear 15,000 inherited unread emails. Telephony wait times that averaged more than 90 minutes earlier this year have been successfully brought down to an average of under two minutes.
The stories we have heard of members missing mortgage payments and falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. No one should have to face such financial anxiety after a lifetime of dedicated public service. That is why I took immediate action to ensure that no member was left to face these challenges alone while these service issues are being resolved. To mitigate the impact on those most affected, we have already provided more than £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members. We are proactively driving the uptake of those loans to ensure that no member in need of support is missed, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to ask their eligible constituents to reach out to their civil service employers for these loans, so that we can provide the vital support they deserve.
I can tell the House that Capita was explicitly instructed in July 2025 to prepare for the volumes it is now seeing. It knew the scale of the challenge, but failed to deliver the IT automation and portal functionality required when the service went live. The result, I am afraid to say, is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. There is also a backlog of more than 1,500 open MP complaints. That is totally unacceptable. I have instructed officials to speak to Capita about how we can ensure that MP correspondence is dealt with quickly and efficiently, noting the importance of the fact that Members across the House were speaking up for their constituents. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent thousands of individuals who are unable to plan for their futures or retire with dignity.
Service delivery is about more than just speed; it is also about the absolute security of member data. The breach we saw on 30 March, which saw personal information compromised on the pension portal, represents a fundamental failure in data protection. To be clear with the House, I will not tolerate these lapses. The Cabinet Office has formally notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of this breach, and we have written formally to the chief executive officer of Capita to demand a full technical account of this failure and a guarantee that it will not happen again.
Across the civil service pension scheme, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers. We are withholding milestone payments where deliverables have not been met, and we reserve every right to take further formal action. The Cabinet Office has mandated a clear recovery target on service levels. Capita must clear all inherited arrears by the end of this month and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June this year. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that these standards are met.
The security and dignity of all those who have dedicated their careers to our civil service and the Royal Mail are not negotiable. They deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure that those standards are met and that members receive the service they have earned. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers.
While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis.
These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service.
Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year.
The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract..
We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid.
The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”?
Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I echo the shadow Minister’s tribute to public servants, including his constituent Chris; I am very sorry to hear about his wife’s cancer diagnosis. I welcome what I think was his support for my decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract. On the civil service pension scheme, he asked about a plan; I have been implementing a plan, and I have come here to update the House on its implementation. He also talked about the contract. The Capita pension scheme contract was awarded by the previous Government in November 2023 on a long-term basis. That is what I inherited and have been trying to deal with. He talked about the point of transition; what I did at the point of transition was get in the Capita chief executive and the Cabinet Office permanent secretary to go through these matters, and to seek assurances. I am afraid to say that the assurances given have not been met.
The shadow Minister talked about not meeting milestones; I can assure him that milestone payments have been withheld, and I will not hesitate to use the commercial levers in the contract to drive performance. I am absolutely clear about the restoration of service by the end of June; that is what I am holding Capita to. He also talked about MyCSP. I have said that we are reserving rights under both these contracts, with regard to the backlog that was left by MyCSP and how Capita has dealt with it since. In relation to MyCSP, there is also an option to pursue a parent company guarantee, and he can be assured that I will explore all possible legal options to ensure that the service that public servants rightly deserve—not just in retirement, but in very difficult circumstances, such as death in service—is being provided sensitively.
The shadow Minister asked about forthcoming meetings and updates. I will consider the appropriate steps to take, and will update the House, and Members from across the House when they write to me.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee has had a number of hearings on this issue, and I am sure the Chair, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), will want to ask some questions. First of all, there is a shared responsibility here. MyCSP has responsibilities, but I have to say that the Cabinet Office oversaw this, and there are real questions that the Minister should be asking officials in the Cabinet Office about their degree of responsibility.
We have had so many assurances on this. Are the June assurances really going to be kept to? This is not a one-off issue, is it? The civil service pension scheme has had at least three different problems with three different providers in the past. We have had the teachers’ pension scheme, the Royal Mail pension scheme—an awful lot of them. We asked the Cabinet Office permanent secretary whether she would go away and look at having an in-house team built up to administer public sector pensions in a way that might prevent these recurring problems with a variety of private sector providers, whose arrangements always seem to go wrong.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend can rest assured that I have interrogated officials on the situation that I inherited. On the point about assurances and promises not being met, I think the House can say today that when assurances are not met, I take decisive action, including commercial action. My hon. Friend will have seen that with regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, but also in our withholding milestone payments from Capita. He talked about whether we are looking at insourcing more things. That clearly is the Government’s pledge, and our policy going forward. With regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, we will look at a range of options in both those categories to ensure that we get the very best possible service for those who deserve it and rely on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme.
My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said in my statement, there is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the taxpayer not having to pick up the tab for Capita’s failures. There has been an offer from Capita to cover the costs of the surge team, which I will consider in my broad consideration of all the commercial issues in respect of this contract. My priority is for taxpayers not to have to foot the bill for issues that have been caused by the provider and are not the fault of the scheme beneficiaries.
With regard to the Royal Mail statutory scheme, as I have said, we will now ensure continuity of service, because that is very important. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that I have been very decisive on the future of that contract today. We will look at a range of options for that, but continuity of service is obviously a priority in the short term.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. The Minister just said that there was an offer from Capita. It should not be an offer; it should be a requirement that it covers the recovery costs.
It was outrageous that the civil service scheme was given to Capita after its failure on the teachers’ pension scheme, its failure with regard to the NHS data releases, and the failure on the military contract. This failure has affected so many civil service pensioners. It has caused real harm, suffering and stress. It is equally outrageous, I have to say, that its performance has not warranted the removal of the contract altogether. The Minister has today terminated the contract with Royal Mail. Why has he not terminated this contract?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised the issue of the preparation of in-house provision of the civil service pension scheme. The Minister did not refer to those preparations. Will he meet the trade unions and discuss how we bring the administration of the civil service pension scheme in house, because as sure as night follows day, Capita will fail on this contract, as it has done on every other?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly echo what my right hon. Friend says about it being imperative that taxpayers do not foot the bill for what has gone wrong. On the different contracts, each obviously has to be considered on its own merits, but the House can be assured that on each of the contracts for which the Cabinet Office is responsible, I keep all contractual options open. With regard to his point about optionality and going in-house in future, I will certainly ensure that the PCS trade union gets the appropriate ministerial meeting.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for meeting me to discuss this issue. As he is aware, the Public Accounts Committee has held multiple sessions with Capita on the broader civil service pension scheme and the problems that scheme members are having accessing their pensions. As numerous colleagues from across the House will have experienced, some of these cases are tragic and deeply distressing. People have not been able to get statements, or even payments, at the most important points of their life. Does the Minister have confidence that his team will be able to manage Capita and rapidly provide civil service pensioners with the scheme that they deserve? Secondly, what reassurance can he give Royal Mail pensioners that their pension scheme will be managed properly during the transition and afterwards, either in-house or by an external provider?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can certainly give an assurance to Royal Mail pensioners, who may be worried about the uncertainty, that we will do all we can to ensure continuity of service. I certainly have confidence in my team, and the surge of about 140 officials into Capita has made a significant difference. Equally, I will clearly have to consider very carefully what the position is at the end of June 2026, and how important that team’s remaining in place, for whatever length of time, is to the level of service.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I should declare that I have preserved benefits in the CSPS, and that I am a member of the PCS trade union.
I thank the Minister for his decisive action in terminating the contract for the Royal Mail pension scheme, and for the ongoing work that he is doing with regard to the civil service pension scheme. He has flagged that there are hard-working public servants who have given their service to the state for many years, and who have been failed when they have looked to retire and to get their pension benefits. I hope that he will hold Capita’s feet to the fire; many of us will be keeping our eyes on the Minister as he does. Will he prioritise those who are entitled to bereavement payments under the death-in-service part of the CSPS? This is a very difficult time for them, and they may not have actually been employed; it is dependants, and sometimes children, who are entitled to these payments.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of bereavement payments, because they are made at such a vulnerable time in people’s lives. The House should be fully aware that I will hold Capita robustly to account on its various contracts. As I am sure that the House will appreciate, in the case of the civil service pension scheme, I have inherited quite a long-term contract, but I will continue to make sure that I reserve all contractual rights on the contracts that we oversee at the Cabinet Office.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like other MPs here, I have constituents who have dedicated years to public service. One, a prison officer, was stabbed and assaulted in his work, and then had the privilege of being at Camp Zeist to supervise the imprisonment of the Lockerbie bomber while they were on trial. I have another constituent who is caring for her mother, who is the beneficiary of a pension and is having palliative care for stage 4 cancer. The Minister has given a very good overview of what is happening, and he talked about the changes that have been made to call times, but one of the themes coming through is about accessing the portal. That issue is leading to a real erosion of trust. If people cannot even get access to the system, it is a real problem. Could he give us an update on that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady speaks powerfully about the very vulnerable situations in which her constituents find themselves, and I entirely share her concerns about the portal. I referred to the statistics on call times in my response to the shadow Minister, and to the average call time. I regularly monitor performance. Where there are particularly egregious examples of poor service, Members should write to me and draw them to my attention. I have mentioned the June 2026 deadline for the resumption of normal service, which includes having a functioning portal. There are people who may not have reached the end of their career, but want to access their updated benefits, and they should be able to do so.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, I raised in this Chamber an issue affecting my constituent, Andrew Mackay, whose wife Katy passed away at the end of September. Both Andrew and Katy worked for Border Force for 40 years, and Andrew has been in contact with Capita numerous times, but with no luck. I have written to the Minister, and I thank him and his team for their engagement with me. After making numerous attempts over several months, my constituent Andrew is still waiting for Katy’s pension. We hear about the prioritisation of bereavement cases, but this has not happened in my constituent’s case. What would the Minister say to my constituent, and to Capita, to get this case resolved?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I say to my hon. Friend’s constituent, Andrew, that I am very sorry to hear about the loss of Katy, and I thank them for their decades of important service to Border Force. In order to take this case forward, it would probably be sensible for my hon. Friend to share the details in a meeting with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We would be delighted to facilitate that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Like colleagues from across the House, I have constituents—veterans and former public servants—who have been treated appallingly by Capita, and who have been unable to access the money that they paid in. The Minister previously promised a standardised mitigation letter that those individuals could take to lenders, so that they did not necessarily have to lend at a commercial rate. I appreciate that there is £7.2 million in interest-free loans as well. Has the Minister delivered on his promise of a standardised mitigation letter, and will he go further, if required, on the £7.2 million in interest-free loans?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, more than £7.2 million is available. I think the standardised mitigation letter was raised previously by another Member. I will certainly take that away and see what progress has been made.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement, for his engagement with me, and for the extensive work that has been done to recover from the mess that MyCSP and Capita have made of the CSPS. Civil servants have dedicated their lives to public service, only to be let down in their retirement, and Members from across the House all have absolutely appalling examples of the real-world impact. First, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again? Secondly, is there any scope for extending the compensation arrangements to individuals who have been unable to retire, through no fault of their own?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I, too, am grateful for the engagement with my hon. Friend, and we are certainly looking at how we learn the lessons of this matter. On her second point about the specific issue of compensation, a complaints procedure is available, as I think I have discussed with her previously, but there is also a very broad point here: I am determined that we will pursue every contractual lever to ensure that the taxpayer does not pick up the tab for the failure of MyCSP or Capita.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I have constituents in Boston and Skegness who have suffered because of the ridiculous and appalling failures of Capita under these two contracts, and they are not the only contracts on which it is failing. To what extent has the Minister looked at the bigger financial picture at Capita? Last year, it earned revenue of almost £1.5 billion from the Government. It has contracts worth over £7 billion, yet it has just disclosed in its results that it has lost over £150 million. It has debts of £140 million, and its market cap is only £350 million. Given how much outsourcing work it does for so many British citizens, to what extent are the Government preparing for plan B in case of a financial crisis at Capita?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he raises a reasonable point, and we are certainly monitoring Capita’s general position. Capita holds a total of 85 contracts across the public sector—39 with central Government and 46 with the wider public sector. He and the House can be assured that we monitor performance across the whole portfolio, and we obviously consider each contract individually. As he says, it is hugely important always to be looking at providers’ financial position, because continuity of service is so important for those who, in the case of the civil service pension scheme, have paid in their own money over decades and deserve dignity in retirement.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced challenges and delays in accessing their pensions via the scheme that Capita has managed, or should I say mismanaged, for some time, including Bindu, Duncan and Ann-Marie. Tony, a civil servant for 40 years, should be looking forward to a well-earned retirement this year, but he has not been able to access his information on the portal. He cannot get through on the phone, and one occasion spent four hours trying to speak to an adviser before giving up.
I am sure the Minister agrees that people find it extremely worrying not to be able to plan for their retirement and understand what is ahead of them. Does he agree that this situation is completely unacceptable? Can he outline what quick action will take place to hold Capita to account, bring about improvements and ensure my constituents can look forward to their well-earned retirement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right that this is totally unacceptable, and that is why I have put in place the recovery plan and why the Cabinet Office is withholding milestone payments. On the four-hour wait, I would be very grateful if, with his constituent’s permission, he gave me the details, including the date, because I would like to take that up.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am delighted to hear the determination with which the Minister intends to approach this and the messages he is sending to Capita, because like many others, I have a mailbox full of civil service pensioners unable to access their funds, many of them in hardship. One woman at the moment fears she may lose her home simply because she cannot get a response from Capita—I have asked for a meeting. Is the Minister aware of any plans to prioritise those in severe hardship, or has he asked Capita to do so, because there seems to be no attempt on its behalf to do that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The surge team of about 140 officials who have gone into Capita are certainly looking at prioritising the most urgent and vulnerable cases. On the hon. Member’s specific case, I would be very grateful if she wrote directly to me about it, and I will certainly look at it.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister. The way that Capita has treated my constituents, such as Jill and the many others who have contacted my office, who have dedicated their lives to public service is nothing short of shameful. This is yet another example of how this Government are sorting out the mess created by the last Government. Can the Minister update the House on the number of hardship loans that have been issued by the Government and the number of civil service pension scheme members who have already received the maximum amount, and how the Government will continue to help them?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the contract we inherited. On the hardship loans, we have already provided over £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members, but that is in no sense a cap. We continue to proactively drive uptake, and I encourage all Members across the House to do the same.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Teresa and Alistair cannot get information or statements on their pension, while Nicola’s payments keep being delayed, damaging her finances. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that no civil servant will be left without timely pension payments? How will the Government restore civil servants’ confidence that the pensions they earn are secure and will be managed fairly?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The situations that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have faced is exactly why the dedicated recovery team was put in place. I will be holding Capita to account on the timetable in the recovery plan for restoring service by the end of June this year. On the cases he has raised, I would be very interested if he could write to me with the details and dates of exactly what happened.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the news of the termination of the Royal Mail pension scheme contract to Capita. As he knows, Capita’s management of the civil service pension scheme has been an absolute shambles. I have constituents who cannot meet their mortgage payments, are having to defer their retirements and are not receiving the compensation they deserve. This is one in a very long list of failures, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined. Can the Minister explain why we keep awarding contracts to Capita, how it represents value for money for the taxpayer and how we are meeting our manifesto commitment of the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are very committed to delivering that manifesto commitment, and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be setting out more about that in due course, following his speech earlier in the year.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the poor performance under this contract. I have taken a decision to terminate the contract for the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, and she and Members across the House can be assured that, under this contract, we will robustly be holding Capita to account. As she rightly says, when people have missed mortgage payments or other things have happened to them through no fault of their own, that is completely unacceptable.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Capita has failed time and again, yet it is constantly awarded more contracts. Sally, one of my constituents, had been told multiple times that her lump sum payment was coming or had already been paid, but it was not paid. She and other civil servants would have been worried to hear in March that Capita is to be awarded a £700 million contract for the civil service payroll. Is that not just another example of how when Capita fails, the Government award it yet more of our money?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is absolutely essential that I make the point that each individual contract has to be considered on its own merits, which is exactly what I have been doing. On procurement by other Departments, one thing I am certainly doing is ensuring that the Cabinet Office shares the lessons learned from the recent transition of the civil service pension scheme, and I will be ensuring that those lessons are certainly made available right across Government.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister not only for the statement, but for his engagement with us over the last six months. A constituent of mine applied for her MyCSP pension quote back in August and finally got the quote last week, but she is still a considerable distance away from actually getting money into her bank account. Will the Minister consider ensuring that the recovery team is in place until all the people caught up in this backlog have money in the bank?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I agree. I will clearly have to make a judgment, but I do not intend to withdraw the team if that would result in a deterioration in service. I will obviously make that judgment very carefully, but having said that, I have been very clear about the June 2026 deadline for the restoration of the proper service under this contract, and I will be holding Capita to it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers on the statement—no one doubts his commitment to try to find a solution. The statement outlined some 1,500 complaints from MPs about their constituents’ pensions being withheld, and a number of those complaints are mine. He highlighted the availability, for people awaiting their pensions, of an interest-free loan of £5,000, or more in exceptional circumstances. Those who have been waiting 16 months for their pensions and are more than £5,000 behind on their mortgage are in a precarious situation, so will the Minister uplift the amount of the interest-free loans and make payments available immediately?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On that final point, if the hon. Member could write to me about precisely what that situation is, I would be more than happy to look at it. Performance on MP correspondence is appalling, and I am not willing to tolerate it. Members across this House are speaking for their constituents who are in very vulnerable situations. I have given very clear instructions about this being dealt with, and in my view it must be dealt with out of respect for this House and the people who work here.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, I would just like to welcome back Andy. He gives us a great deal of service in this Chamber. It is good to see him back. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I welcome the action the Government have taken and the Minister’s statement today. I thank him for his engagement with me over the past six months. It is clear that Capita has shamefully failed many Portsmouth North civil servants. Kirsty is still waiting for ill health compensation. Christine is waiting months for her widow’s pension payments. Louise submitted request forms and, since November, has heard nothing. Anne, after 48 years of public service and following the sad death of her husband, has been unable to get any clarity on her pension forecast. These are not numbers on a spreadsheet, but real people and real lives. On behalf of these women, I ask the Minister: when will the civil service pension scheme finally be stabilised?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I, too, welcome back Andy and thank him for his service.
I say to my hon. Friend and those four constituents that what I have said in the recovery plan and what is part of the recovery plan is for the contractual level of service to be back by June. If that is not delivered, I reserve all rights under this contract with Capita.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in welcoming Andy back to the Speaker’s Office. He is a shoulder to cry on after Harlow Town’s recent results.
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, which is hugely important to residents of Harlow, including veterans and those who have worked tirelessly over the years in the postal service and the civil service. In one of my previous roles working for a homelessness charity, I have seen the devastating effect that late pension payments can have on people’s lives. We should not forget the human impact of these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) recognised the issues with teachers’ pensions. My constituent, Carol, constantly comes to speak to me about the issues she is having with her teacher pension. I recommend that the Minister looks at that as well. What will the Paymaster General do to ensure we get these pensions right and to hold Capita to account, and will he consider insourcing these pensions if necessary, to show that this Labour Government are on the side of hard-working pensioners?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are absolutely on the side of those pensioners. The important thing in the immediate term is the stabilisation of the service. That is why I will be holding Capita robustly to account on the recovery plan.
I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend that I cannot help him with the results of Harlow Town!
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Alberto Costa on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct, to rectify a failure to declare.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest during a debate on 16 July 2025 about the Committee on Standards’ third report of the 2024-25 Session, which concerns the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. During the debate, I inadvertently failed to declare a relevant interest: I employ my wife, who is subject to the rules about the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. This was in breach of the House’s rules and I apologise to the House for this error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first associate myself with the comments made with regard to our colleague who stands at your left-hand shoulder?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall that a number of weeks ago, in my capacity as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, I raised the allegations of the smearing of journalists by the organisation Labour Together during the period when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) was the director of that organisation. At that point, the Prime Minister referred the matter to the ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus. I have been in correspondence with Laurie Magnus, after he produced his report to the Prime Minister very quickly after the reference.
I was in correspondence with Sir Laurie Magnus because I was informed that he failed to call any witnesses during that inquiry, even though written evidence was submitted to him by one of the journalists who was the victim of the smears. I wrote to him as he had informed the victim that he had not seen the evidence because his secretariat had not provided it to him. The journalist had written to Sir Laurie Magnus in advance to say he was submitting evidence. He submitted that evidence and it was not provided to him by his secretariat. The secretariat to the inquiry is the Cabinet Office. I wrote to express my concerns to Sir Laurie Magnus that his inquiry could not be complete, as he had not seen that evidence. I therefore urged him to withdraw the conclusions of the inquiry and to consider the evidence that has been provided to him. He has refused.
I have kept the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee informed, but of course it cannot take up individual cases. It appears that the only route for me to secure the truth of this whole episode is for the Government to set up an independent inquiry. I have requested that in correspondence with the Prime Minister and others at least five times. We have tried the formal routes. We now need a full inquiry.
The reason I raise this issue on behalf of the NUJ is because smearing journalists in that way destroys their careers. For at least one of the journalists concerned, I think it has put his safety at risk as well—it is as serious as that. We have Members on the Treasury Bench today. I want to put this issue on the record. In addition, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask those on the Treasury Bench to take this issue back to the Prime Minister; I urge them to press upon him the importance of this issue and the need for an independent inquiry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. I understand that he has informed the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) in advance. The right hon. Member raises a serious and important issue. He has, I know, already followed up directly with the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser on this matter, and he has now placed on record his request that the Government consider establishing an independent inquiry. That is a matter for the Government, rather than the Chair. If he requires any further advice on pursuing this issue, he may wish to seek guidance from the Clerks.
Criminal Proceedings (Juror Absence)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any criminal proceedings set down for trial may not be adjourned by reason of absence of or discharge of a juror where the number of members of the jury is not reduced below nine; and for connected purposes.
I am introducing a Bill today that seeks to address a gap in our justice system—one that has caused profound and lasting harm to victims. The Bill proposes that any criminal proceedings set down for trial should not be adjourned solely due to the absence or discharge of a juror, provided that the number of jurors does not fall below nine. It is a practical and measured reform, but one rooted in a deeply human story. The reason for the Bill comes from the truly harrowing experience of one of my constituents. I will not name her today, but she has consented to me sharing her story so that others might be spared the same injustice.
At a young age, she was the victim of an appalling crime—one that no person, let alone a child, should ever have to endure. In time, she came to realise that she was not alone. There were many other victims: children who had suffered at the hands of a man in a position of power and trust—a man who abused that trust in the most abhorrent way.
Years later, my constituent and others showed immense courage. They made the brave decision to speak out and to relive their trauma in pursuit of justice. Eventually, a trial date was set. That date represented more than a legal proceeding. It was their chance to be heard, their chance for accountability and their chance for justice. When the day of the trial finally arrived, all the victims attended. It was, as Members can imagine, an emotional and deeply traumatic step. They had waited years for that moment. The defendant by then was elderly and in poor health, but he was also present.
On the first day of the trial, one juror fell ill. However, there were still enough jurors for the trial to proceed because the legal minimum was met. My constituent recounts that the judge consulted the defendant, who unsurprisingly stated that he did not wish for the trial to go ahead. What is more troubling, though, is the fact that the views of the victims were not sought or considered; they were not asked whether they wanted it to proceed, despite everything they had endured to reach that point. Instead, the judge ruled that the trial would be postponed. A new date was set, but that was over a year later. Five weeks before that date arrived, the defendant died.
In this case, justice delayed was justice denied. My constituent will now never have her day in court. She will never stand to testify to the horrors she endured and will never see the man who caused her such unimaginable pain face justice. She is not alone; many other victims in this case were also let down.
The Bill seeks to ensure that such an injustice does not happen again. The Government are rightly working to reduce court delays and progress is being made, and I congratulate the Minister for Courts and Legal Services for all the work she is doing to see change in this area. However, as things stand, there remain victims and, indeed, defendants on remand whose cases risk being delayed unnecessarily for reasons like this, and that must change.
Of course, there will always be exceptional circumstances in which a judge may need to exercise discretion and delay proceedings. The Bill would not remove that judicial judgment, but it would establish a clear presumption that where the minimum number of jurors remains, the trial should proceed. At the heart of this issue are not procedures, but people—people who have already waited too long, suffered too much and deserve better from our justice system. This is a modest reform, but it carries significant consequences. It is about efficiency, fairness and, above all, justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sally Jameson, Joe Morris, Emma Foody, Anneliese Midgley, Laurence Turner, Shaun Davies, Katrina Murray, Alex McIntyre, Adam Thompson, Jonathan Hinder, Andrew Cooper and Sarah Russell present the Bill.
Sally Jameson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 430).
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A and 88C to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendment 88B to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 37B and 37C but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments 77 and 85 but proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Torsten Bell
I thank Members and peers for the continued scrutiny of the Bill before us. Our task today is to focus on the limited outstanding areas of disagreement, although that should not detract from the consensus behind this Bill—behind the case for a better pension landscape that sees bigger, better pension schemes focused on delivering stronger returns for savers. On the issues that remain before us, I hope that Members and peers will see that we have listened to the points they have raised and brought forward amendments that directly address what we have heard, while of course holding to the core principles of delivering against the Labour manifesto, which was clear on our policy intent around scale and productive investment.
First, I turn to the reserve power on asset allocation. Last week I set out the Government’s case for such a power at some length, and I will spare the House a full repetition today—[Interruption.] I know, I know, but there is so much more to discuss. We will not have time to discuss the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) if I offer a full statement.
In brief, since hon. Members have asked, there is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined-contribution pensions market. Providers want to diversify their asset allocations in their members’ long-term interests and in the interests of better pensions for savers, but they are clear publicly—and even more emphatically in private—that market dynamics, which focus on minimising cost rather than maximising long-term value for savers, are the single biggest barrier to doing so. That is not a theoretical risk; it is exactly why so little progress was made against the Mansion House compact under the last Government. The reserve power exists for the sole purpose of solving this problem.
Last week, we brought forward changes to make that absolutely explicit by writing the industry-set Mansion House accord targets into primary legislation through the 10% and 5% caps, and requiring any regulations to operate neutrally across asset classes. These were designed to make it clear in the Bill that the power can be used only in line with what the industry itself has committed to. The cap prohibits any move beyond the accord targets and the neutrality requirement rules out the possibility that any Government could direct investments into a particular asset or asset class.
As is plain, however, we have not yet reached agreement across the two Houses. Rather than simply restating our position today, the Government are bringing forward a further package of changes.
First, we are bringing forward the current sunset date for the reserve power from 2035 to 2032. The Mansion House accord commits the industry to reaching its targets by 2030, and bringing forward the sunset clause aligns the power more closely with that timeline. If the power has not been exercised by the end of 2032, it falls away entirely. Secondly, because the power has only one purpose, we are providing that it may be exercised only once.
Thirdly—I want the House to understand the significance of this—we are providing for not just the power but any effects of it to fully fall away at the end of 2035. That goes beyond the sunset clause I have just described and means that even if the power has been used, the entire framework and any requirements on schemes will fall away at the end of 2035. This timeline reflects the fact that once the cultural shift has occurred and the impacts of the Mansion House accord are embedded, the collective action problem falls away. At that point, other elements of the Bill—greater scale and the impacts of the value for money framework—will help to sustain the change.
I want to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) in our previous debate. She observed correctly that the Bill referred to assets held in default funds as a whole, whereas the Mansion House accord applies only to main default funds. As the policy is intended to reflect the accord, the legislation would ideally use the same language, so we have tabled amendments to ensure that that is the case throughout the relevant provisions and have retabled the percentage cap with the same wording. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pressing that point last week.
Let me be clear that the House today is being asked to consider a reserve power that is highly constrained and narrowly focused on solving a very specific problem. It is capped at the accord targets and provides for absolute neutrality among private asset classes. The Government cannot direct investments. The power explicitly applies only to main default funds, more explicitly matching the language used in the accord. The power’s timeline also matches tightly that of the accord. It can be used only once and lapses entirely in 2035 if not used; even if used, which is unlikely, the entire regime is repealed at the end of 2035. On top of all that, it remains subject to the savers’ interest test, the affirmative procedure and the statutory reporting requirements, both before and after any regulations are made.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on stewarding the Bill with such expertise, and I very much hope that the cultural change that he is hoping for sticks and that we do not just get an unwinding of the repatriation of UK investment. A necessary corollary of what he is proposing is a fiduciary duty and a fiduciary code that give pension fund trustees real clarity in investing in a wide range of investments that are good for the long-term health of the savings they are stewarding. It was unfortunate that the other place rejected the Government’s amendment that would have allowed a new statutory code to be implemented. Will the Minister confirm that the technical working group that he has set up to revise that code will proceed, and will he commit to bringing forward further amendments to future legislation to give effect to the ambition that he set out in response to my new clause 17?
Torsten Bell
I share my right hon. Friend’s frustration about developments in the Lords on those matters, not least because some of those who voted against amendments that would have introduced statutory guidance, as he says, have spent years calling for exactly that—but that is a matter for them. The Government will proceed on work to draft that guidance. The technical working group is well under way and is doing good work to provide clarity to the industry. We will come forward with proposals to put the guidance on a statutory footing in the months and years ahead.
As I was saying, the timeline tightly matches that of the accord. I hope that everybody can see that the framework is a long way from the characterisation of this power that we have occasionally heard. I understand that some Members of this House and the other place would prefer it if the power did not exist at all. I respect that view, but I do not share it. The evidence for the collective action problem is clear—we have lived it—and I have listened but heard no alternative proposal to address it. The consequences of not addressing it fall on pension savers—the people who rely on their defined-contribution savings for a comfortable retirement. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take.
The elected House has now considered this question twice. On both occasions, it has overwhelmingly endorsed the case for the reserve power to deliver our manifesto commitments in this area. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and have responded not with warm words but with real concessions, through changes to primary legislation that directly address the arguments made. I hope that MPs and peers will now accept that the Government have moved significantly and provided the assurance they have been seeking.
Lords amendment 35B would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations across the scale measures and those for default arrangements, to have regard to
“the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes”.
The Government of course support the importance of competition as the market moves towards scale, and have done so in the Bill’s provisions. The market is already highly competitive, and the new entrant pathway is designed to ensure that it remains so. The same goal is reflected in a scheme’s ability to open new default arrangements.
However, we have heard the arguments that have been made during debates, and I recognise the desire in the other place to see that commitment in the Bill. This is why I have tabled amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 35B. It sets out that the Secretary of State, in setting regulations in respect of both the scale measures and those relating to default arrangements, must have regard to the importance of competition and innovation. The amendment in lieu delivers on the proposals from the other place, but with an appropriately holistic approach to the issues to which a Secretary of State will need to have regard in the years ahead. That reflects that our ultimate focus is, of course, on delivering the best outcomes for members, of which competition in the market is one important driver. Under the Government’s amendment, regulations must have regard not just to scale, but to competition and innovation, alongside effective governance. The explanatory notes will make that clear.
On Lords amendment 37B, the case for scale has been made, and both Houses have broadly agreed with the benefits that it brings. Indeed, all main parties are on the record as recognising the key role of scale in delivering better outcomes for savers. We all made those arguments, recognising that moves towards scale would always mean some schemes exiting the market because we collectively prioritise the need to deliver for those who work hard to save for retirement, and we must ensure that they are saving into schemes that can deliver better outcomes.
Scale drives lower costs, better governance, investment expertise and a balance sheet that can provide a more diverse portfolio for savers, improving overall outcomes for them in the longer term. That focus on scale was explicitly laid out in our manifesto, and the evidence for the approach we are taking was detailed in the pensions investment review. The Lords amendment pays too little regard to that evidence and that manifesto. It would also be unworkable in practice, as it would enmesh regulators in years of legal proceedings while leaving providers and savers in limbo.
However, I have listened to the argument made in this House and the other place that the innovation some smaller schemes offer members should not be dismissed. I absolutely agree, which is a key reason our approach to ensuring that scale is achieved has been so pragmatic.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not claim to be a huge expert on pensions, which may be why, rather than focusing on the point last week, I made comments about the hair of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I will not do so again—but it is fantastic hair.
Pensioners in my constituency are passionate about ensuring that they get the best return on their savings—that is hugely important—and that their pensions are secure, as the Paymaster General said in his statement. What reassurance can the Minister give them that the provisions he has set out today and last week will give them the best returns and security?
Torsten Bell
As always, my hon. Friend asks an important question. As I have said, the entire focus of the Bill is on ensuring that we drive up returns for savers. I am sure that he has already read all 200-odd pages of the extensive impact assessment, which sets out clearly that we would expect an average earner who saves over their lifetime, in line with auto-enrolment levels, to see higher returns of around £29,000 to their pension pot when they head towards retirement. That is not an inconsequential amount when we want to ensure that future generations can trust the system to deliver them a comfortable retirement in the years ahead.
As I was saying, the Lords amendments in this area are unworkable, but we must recognise the importance of innovation. That is why we have taken our pragmatic approach. The evidence suggests that the benefits of scale are achieved once a threshold ranging from £25 billion to £50 billion of assets is reached. The scale requirements in the Bill not only target the bottom end of that range—£25 billion—but provide a long timeline for schemes to reach it, especially given that this is a fast-growing market. Smaller schemes require only £10 billion of assets in 2030 to qualify for the transition pathway.
To provide further reassurance, I have tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37B to require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the effects of pension schemes consolidation and the extent to which innovative product designs are adopted or maintained following consolidation activity, as well as any barriers that may exist to preserving those features. The timing of the report, which is required to be published within 12 months, will ensure that the Government are then able to take necessary action in advance of the scale measures being commenced in 2030.
On Lords amendments 77 and 85, the Government agree with the points made during the Bill’s passage regarding the importance of transparency around, and clear accounting for, public service pensions. I discussed those issues yesterday with Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who tabled the amendments. I completely agree with her that it is crucial that the future cost of payments from unfunded pension schemes is understood and taken into account in Government decision making. That applies to the Treasury in aggregate, as well as to individual organisations making decisions about the nature and level of staffing. We will continue to ensure that accounting and budgetary processes support this.
The Government invite the House to accept our amendment (a) in lieu, which recognises the important principle that Parliament, policymakers and the public should be able to see clearly the long-term cost of unfunded public service pension schemes. The amendment requires the Government Actuary to produce within 12 months a document setting out its analysis of the long-term impacts of public sector pensions, covering both expenditure on benefits and income from member contributions. The document must be provided to the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the former is required to make it available to Parliament. That approach is focused on the evidence base, using the Government Actuary to produce impartial numbers to aid understanding and debates on this issue.
I hope that Members will have heard our serious engagement with the issues raised by peers and by Opposition parties in this House. We are committed to delivering the policy intent in the Bill, given its crucial role in driving better outcomes for savers and the important place given to these pension reforms in our 2024 manifesto. We have tabled significant amendments to address the specific issues raised, aiming to further reinforce the consensus on the Bill that has been evident since its Second Reading in this House. On that basis, I hope that Members will be happy to support our amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
What a difference a week makes. When the hon. Gentleman rose to conclude our debate last Wednesday, he delivered from the Dispatch Box what I can only describe as a tirade. Serious and considered concerns—not just from me and my hon. Friends, but from noble Lords and many respected people across the industry—were met with accusations. We were told that those concerns were “nonsense on stilts”. He said that I had been “infected” by my party. If by that he meant that I have strong opinions—that I believe in a smaller state because Governments do not have all the answers and often need to get out of the way—then I must break the news to him that I have held those views for many years. I came to Parliament after a career in business. I knew my views then, and I still know them now.
Last week I thought that the Minister could and should do better, and I am glad that since then he has. His tone has shifted, and I am grateful for the discussions he has had with me and my team. His engagement has been constructive, and we have indeed made progress.
Turning to the amendments tabled since our last debate, I first welcome the Government’s commitment on the local government pension scheme. A faster and wider review of the triennial valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department is sensible and significant. If the review is to be meaningful, it must focus on what actually drives employer contribution rates, and we welcome that the Government have now recognised that.
Secondly, the Government have committed, in their amendment in lieu of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendment 77, to examine the costs and sustainability of public sector pensions. That too is welcome. That review should consider questions of intergenerational fairness, long-term sustainability and how best to protect the benefits already promised to people, particularly at a time when demands on the state are rising and taxpayers are being asked to contribute more than ever.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 380 and the Noes were seven, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Liam Byrne
I rise to say a couple of things in support of the Minister, who not only has done a heroic job in laying out the intellectual architecture for the legislation before he got to the House, but is so expertly steering it through the House. I wish him all the very best this afternoon in finishing the job.
I want to make three points. First, the measures that the Minister has set out are essential if we are to pursue the long-term interests of pension savers in this country. It is in their fundamental interests that they live and retire in an economy that is growing faster in the years to come. The only way in which we can collectively achieve that is by raising the investment rate in this country. For a long time, our investment rate was the lowest in the G7; it is improving and is now the second-lowest in the G7. It is for exactly that purpose that hon. Members on both sides of the House made the argument that we need to repatriate investment saving.
The fact is, we have got to resolve the paradox that, on the one hand, we have £3 trillion-worth of pension savings and, on the other hand, while we have some of the world’s best life science, best universities and best entrepreneurs, we do not have the investment institutions and systems that connect long-term savings to that brilliant tradition of entrepreneurial genius. Unless we fix that long-standing paradox, this country will not grow faster. That is not a Labour analysis; it is an analysis that was first advanced by the former Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt).
If we manage to get that right, the investment rate in the country will go up and the economy will grow faster in the years to come. Therefore, there is not a cost to the savings of Britain’s pension savers—it will actually be to their advantage.
Helen Whately
As I think the right hon. Gentleman will have heard in my speech, there is widespread agreement that we want to see more investment by pension funds in the UK; the debate is about whether mandation is the way to achieve that. Actually the Minister’s main argument for the mandation powers is not about investment in the UK; it is about solving a collective action first-mover problem in trying to improve returns and the risk that that will put up costs to pension funds and for savers. That is what he’s really arguing, rather than the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about investment in the UK.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Lady made my second point for me. It is just not good enough to will the ends and not the means. The reality is that, after all the heroic work of the former Conservative Chancellor, built on ably by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance the Mansion House accord and the Sterling 20, the repatriation of long-term savings into our country is going at a snail’s pace. If we want to deliver it by a timetable on which we are both agreed, we will need to give a little bit of encouragement to the industry. That is exactly what the Minister’s proposed provision would do.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The right hon. Member raises many really important points, much of which we agree with. That is why, I think on Report, the Opposition tabled an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. It specifically asked, “Why are these pension funds not investing in the UK? Is it legislative, is it regulatory or is it cultural?” The Government voted against that. They voted against exactly the work we need to do to understand what the problem is. Could he possibly explain why?
Liam Byrne
I can advance only my own analysis of what will be needed. Indeed, it is part of a wider Business and Trade Committee inquiry, which will produce a report in a couple of weeks, on how we transform the investment environment. The reality is that there is a shared ambition on both sides of the House to ensure that we fix this long-standing paradox. My judgment is that the measures the Minister is proposing are essential if we are to deliver on that by the early 2030s. It is just not good enough to try to persuade Britain’s pension funds through sheer mind powers alone to repatriate the investment they are proposing. By taking the Minister’s approach, we stand a better chance.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals before us in the Bill as a whole. I know from conversations with residents in Torbay that there are some challenges within the pensions market, and the Bill as a whole addresses an awful lot of them. However, I suggest that the Minister has been studying his Greek history, assumed the position of Odysseus and developed a Trojan horse, which he has sneaked into the Bill. The Trojan horse is, of course, mandation.
While the Minister may have cut off a couple of the Trojan horse’s legs, it remains a Trojan horse before us. Clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we welcome that as a step in the right direction, but the Government should be shaping the market appropriately through policy so that there is a pipeline of opportunities for investments—that goes across to the Mansion House accord—so that the market has those opportunities and can invest in them appropriately.
There is an element that we need to touch on. Since 2008, there has been risk aversion in the market, which stifles profits; we need to be alive to that. Risk is a good thing when investing, but investments should be sensible and with appropriate spreads. The Bill does elements of that, but I fear that some of the monitoring could stifle risk and therefore stifle returns.
The Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure opportunities. The Government should be ensuring that there are baskets of opportunities to invest in things that matter to our communities, whether regenerating our town centres or social rented housing. We know that people such as Legal & General lead the market in those investments; we need to think about how we can enhance those opportunities. We must also ensure that we are investing in net zero, which is close to the heart of several parties. Again, the Government should be shaping the market in that way rather than dictating. While the Minister alludes to this as a one-shot opportunity, other colleagues are fearful that mandation is the thin end of the wedge.
Finally, I would like to reflect on the changes that the Minister has proposed. We welcome the changes allowing greater innovation and greater development of the market, which are significant steps in the right direction. However, as Liberal Democrats we are not prepared to see the dead hand of Government directing here. We continue to oppose mandation in whatever form it may take.
Torsten Bell
I thank the Members from across the House who have contributed to the debate today. Let me respond directly to a few of their comments. I welcome much of the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks. I am glad that she welcomed many of the Government’s amendments, including those on public sector pensions and around innovation and competition—I appreciate that. I hope, when those issues are debated in the Lords in the near future, that there will be similar consensus across that House.
The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of scale. Again, I am glad that she has welcomed the review that will happen within 12 months of the Bill’s commencement. On scale, I am a bit more confident than she is on the role of small schemes to grow, because we can see significant growth right across the market, including among small schemes, partly because the market itself is growing so fast in the current climate. However, I offer no comment on her pessimism about Tottenham Hotspur; that is for others to speak on.
To be fair, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, the main area of disagreement that remains is around the reserve power. She raised the question of the accord and whether it applied to the whole industry. She is correct; it does not apply to the whole industry, but it does cover 90% of defined contribution assets held within the industry. We are therefore talking about not just a majority but the overwhelming majority of the industry.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Labour manifesto, which set out two focuses on pensions. One was around the question of scale, on which we have just touched and which I think is a matter of cross-party consensus; the second, which, again, I think is a matter of cross-party consensus, is on the importance of delivering change in terms of investment in productive assets in private assets. That is exactly the focus of both the Mansion House accord and the reserve power.
The hon. Lady said the power was about directing specific outcomes. As I have been setting out, it absolutely does not do that. It will not allow any direction of savers into particular assets or particular asset classes, and it offers no ability for Government to take control of pension savers’ pensions. Indeed, I think it is actually dangerous to have members of the public hearing remarks like that when that is categorically not the case.
The shadow Secretary of State is right to say, though, and this maybe gets to the crux of where we are, that the money belongs to savers. That is what this is about and that is what we all agree about; we want to see higher returns to savers. The industry is telling us that diversifying their range of assets is in their savers’ interest and it is admitting that it has not done so to date. [Interruption.] No, that is what the industry is saying. Savers are not saying that, because savers do not have that choice and they are intermediated by providers, some of which have trustees and some of which do not. That is the underlying point: they need to see that change happen, that it has not happened and that we have seen it not happen. Implicitly, what that is saying is that members are losing out from the status quo, and what I am not hearing from the Conservatives is a serious engagement with that reality that has let down savers. [Interruption.] I will come to the point about the previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) shortly.
I now come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), not least because he admirably set out the big challenge facing Britain, which is to turn this country back into a country that invests in its own future once again. That means higher investment. It is not acceptable that Britain saw both the second-lowest public investment in the G7 and by far the lowest business investment in the G7 under the last Government—and not for some years but for almost every single year. That is the challenge that I think we all want to see addressed. Part of the issue being raised about whether this is about UK assets or private finance is overdone, because what we see around the world is a higher home bias among private asset investments than among public asset investments, for all the obvious reasons about the comparative advantage of different investors in those situations.
My right hon. Friend also rightly says—I think this is, again, part of a cross-party consensus—that moving to that high-investment world is overwhelmingly not about pensions, but much wider changes and about making sure that actual investment happens so firms can actually get things built. That is why this Government have come in and provided the go-ahead for solar farms, wind farms, national grid investments and nuclear power stations that have been held up for too long. That is what a higher-investment country looks like and that is what we need to be getting on with, and I have a nugget of good news to bring my right hon. Friend on that. If hon. Members go and look at the investment levels in the national accounts—I know everybody in this room spends their time doing that—they will see that, since the election, Britain has seen the fastest investment growth of any country in the G7. That is what we are starting to deliver against what we set out as our core objective, which is turning Britain back into a higher-investment country.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned his previous amendment, which asked for the reasons why schemes say the change would be in savers’ interest but have not done it. The problem is that we have had a lot of reviews. The Association of British Insurers has written some and published them, explaining why the previous Government’s attempt with the Mansion House compact did not work. We have the answer; I am afraid the hon. Gentleman just does not want to engage with what he is being told.
Mark Garnier
Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.
Torsten Bell
I am afraid the hon. Member has just revealed his lack of focus on what is going on. Pension schemes from around the world are investing in British private assets; it is UK pension schemes that are not. The hon. Member implied that there were minefields when investing in Britain. It is that kind of talking down Britain that is the problem. We are making sure that there is a robust pipeline of investments, which is absolutely right.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I think all of us on the Opposition Benches would be keen to understand why, if the Minister is so confident that pension funds will invest, he does not make it a choice rather than a mandate.
Torsten Bell
I fear the hon. Lady has not sat through enough of these sessions. Earlier, those on her own Front Bench engaged exactly with some of the arguments that I have made, explaining exactly the points she has raised. I will just say that she should go and have a look at what Australian pension schemes are doing investing in UK infrastructure and go and look at what is happening when US investors are investing in UK venture capital. Why is that happening? It is not because of differential tax breaks—there are very strong tax incentives. No, it is because of a history of not having the collective action problem that we have set out, and the fact that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not wish to engage with that is holding us back.
Helen Whately
On the ABI report that he referred to—he has referred to it before—yes, the ABI has agreed with the diagnosis of the problem, as I set out, as a collective action problem. However, it does not agree with mandation as the remedy. The Minister needs to be clear about that.
Torsten Bell
The truth is that there is a range of opinion among ABI members about that. However, there is agreement across the industry about the need to deliver change.
I turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) who, again, kindly did not refer to the Lib Dem manifesto, which called not just for reserve power, but for the direction of pension scheme assets into certain asset classes. I gently say that it is a shame to not see him engage with the substance, rather than taking the easy option of offering high-level, throwaway comments about a thing that he had in his own manifesto. On the plus side, however, he is right to say that the investment pipeline is important. The issue there is that that is different in different sectors. Within the infrastructure sector, it is obviously about having a country that is delivering actual infrastructure. Within venture capital, it is about making sure that there is easier intermediation for pension schemes into a market of which they have less experience. We are doing exactly that and that is what the Sterling 20 process is doing. I see very good engagement between pension schemes right across the board on that and every chief executive I speak to is engaging with exactly those questions that the hon. Member for Torbay raises.
The Bill has received detailed scrutiny over the past year, and it is a better Bill for it. We have brought forward amendments that, subject to delivering the core pension reform programme of the elected Government, respond to the detailed points raised by peers in the other place. With those improvements, this is a Bill that industry worker representatives and charities wish to see passed into law. The TUC said:
“It’s vital the Bill is passed so workers can start to benefit.”
Age UK has said the measures in the Bill will help both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. It is important that these can be implemented as soon as possible. Aviva welcomed today’s amendments and said:
“We hope this is enough to build the consensus needed for the Bill to be passed”.
The ABI has said that it and its members are
“clear that we want the Bill to pass”.
They are right, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put.
Helen Whately
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last Division we voted on was on a motion proposed by the Government that grouped a series of amendments with which we agreed, alongside amendments on mandation, with which we had strong disagreements. What steps can be taken to bring about a separate Division on the mandation clauses, with which we disagree?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. The content of the motions is a matter for the Government. I can reassure her that they would not have appeared on the Order Paper unless they were in order. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard what she has said. If she would like any further advice on procedure, I recommend that she contact the Public Bill Office.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for granting my point of order and apologise for not giving you due notice of it. Given the events of recent days and some of the debates that have been called, when can we get an update from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the work it is undertaking and on its findings regarding the Mandelson papers?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Committee.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I must inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If this Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 26
Power to require internet service providers to restrict or prevent access by children to internet services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments 102C to 102G and proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 106, but does not insist on amendments 106C to 106E and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation.
I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the Government have been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of PAN decisions. As committed to by my noble Friend Lady Smith in the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu reflecting this. These amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce the school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant Department for Education regional director.
We are also taking a power to make it clear that we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through the Bill, we will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and parental choice, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, such as the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including on proposed changes to regulations and the school admissions code.
I now turn to Lords amendments 38V to 38X on children’s access to social media. There is a clear consensus across this House on the need to protect children online, but our consultation goes further than these amendments, considering a wider set of options, including risks beyond social media, such as gaming and AI chatbots. Hon. Members should have no doubt that it is not a question of whether the Government act but how they act to deliver strong and enduring protections for children online. The House should also be clear that the Government will act quickly.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Can I thank my hon. Friend for the Government’s work on this important matter, which is much appreciated by many parents—in particular the work of looking ahead at what further measures might be taken to tackle online harms?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention and for all his work for his constituents in Reading Central.
To underline the fact that we will act quickly, we have committed to responding to the consultation by the summer and have made a legislative commitment to report to Parliament within six months.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time, as always. I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee. I hope that I do not steal the thunder of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is sitting next to me. Yesterday we received evidence from representatives of social media companies and from academics, although we were all hugely disappointed that one social media company did not provide representation. Does the Minister agree that whatever the Government decide when it comes to social media—whether it is restricted, banned or an age restriction is put in place—it is hugely important that young people learn about the dangers? We must ensure that goes into the expanded school curriculum, as discussed in the White Paper.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his work. I do agree with him; this is an important point. The issue is a part of our revised national curriculum and also the relationships, sex and health education curriculum.
I am grateful for the engagement of peers and Members across the House on this vital topic. As a result, we have made a number of other changes that strengthen our position, including clarifying that this power can only be exercised to protect children from online harm and that we will share draft regulations with Select Committees and Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the constructive engagement from Lord Nash and the Conservatives as we come to a solution on our small areas of difference. I can assure the House that we intend to return to these matters on Monday in the other place and put beyond doubt the Government’s plans to act and to do so swiftly.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It seems to me as though the Government are just kicking the can down the road. We have an opportunity in the legislation before us, and particularly in Lord Nash’s amendment—which we are not being allowed to vote on as I understand it—to limit the use of social media outlets to those who are over 16. We also have the opportunity to tighten very seriously the regulations relating to the use of mobile phones in schools, but again, there is a loophole. Why are we being so wishy-washy?
Olivia Bailey
I reject the right hon. Member’s characterisation that we are kicking the can down the road. In fact, we are having a wide-ranging consultation—much wider than the amendments before us—that enables us to act swiftly and decisively. We guarantee that we will protect our children from harm.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Olivia Bailey
I am going to make progress.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 106 on our shared objective on banning phones in schools. As the House knows, at the start of the year the Government took decisive action to ban phones in schools. We strengthened the Conservatives’ weak guidance, including making it clear—to directly quote the guidance—that we expect schools
“to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime.”
We wrote to every headteacher in the country to make it clear that the Government have their back when it comes to banning phones in schools. We asked Ofsted to enforce the ban, which it started doing this month, and we have rolled out a targeted programme of support to ensure that any struggling school gets the help it needs so that this ban is fully in place.
Olivia Bailey
I will finish this section of my speech and then give way.
As the Government have consistently said and as sector leaders have repeated, this is a challenge of enforcement, and I genuinely believe that the package of measures we have already put in place will ensure effective bans of phones in schools.
I have the greatest of respect for colleagues across the House who have argued that placing this guidance on a statutory footing could support enforcement, and we have tabled that amendment today. I am thrilled to see that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has indicated her support for this position.
The Bill before us contains vital measures to keep our children safe online and offline. These measures are desperately needed, yet this Bill has been languishing for 15 months. The time has come to stop playing political games and get this Bill on the statute book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I want to start with some good news. After a year of resisting—insisting that a statutory ban on smartphones in schools was, to quote the Prime Minister, “unnecessary”—the Government have finally given in and we have got what we have been asking for: a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. Ministers have told me over and over again that there is not a problem. They said that the vast majority of schools have a phone ban and that a statutory ban was, to quote the Education Secretary, a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. At one stage, I was told—by an Education Minister during Education questions, no less—that I needed something better to go on than a smartphone ban in schools. But we have kept fighting, because I know and my party knows that there is a problem.
The Department for Education’s own evidence says that phones are still disrupting almost half of GCSE classes every day. We know that children are still seeing porn at school on their friends’ smartphones, and it is affecting behaviour. We have tried guidance to fix the problem, but it has not worked. There is a phones crisis in schools, and only making the guidance statutory could possibly fix it. After various contortions from the Government Front Bench, I am glad that they have finally listened.
In the face of a Government who until recently refused to accept that there is a problem, I pay tribute to the incredible campaigners—SafeScreens, Mumsnet, Parentkind, Will Orr-Ewing, Generation Focus, Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Phone Free Education and Smartphone Free Childhood. Their relentless focus and pressure has helped to give voice to the frustrated teachers, parents and students who were desperate for change—change that we have now delivered in the Bill.
While that is good news, I want the Government to make it crystal clear that a “not seen, not heard” policy is not allowed under these rules. The statistic that Ministers constantly give—that 80% of schools already have a smartphone ban—includes schools that have a “not seen, not heard” policy. Such policies do not work: children still use their phones, they are allowed them in their bags, they still go to the loos and message their friends, and they are still exposed to nasty content on phones during the school day. The real number of schools with a full smartphone ban, where phones are not allowed to be with children at all during the school day, is only 11% according to Policy Exchange. It is vital that the Minister is explicit that a “not seen, not heard” policy, where children are free to carry their phones in their bags during the school day as long as the phones are silent, is prohibited under the guidance.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I had intended to speak in the debate but I am afraid I have to leave by 4 pm, so I would not have been able to be in the Chamber for the wind-ups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crux of the matter is that although it is all very well for the Government to now accept what the Conservatives have been pushing for—a ban on phones in schools—it is simply not good enough for them to say that it is the responsibility of the pupil to not use their phone? Young people are easily influenced and they may well come under peer pressure to keep their phones and to use them to communicate, as my right hon. Friend has said. Will she push the Government to say how they are going to support schools, as the Minister said that they will do, to ensure that the ban is effective?
Laura Trott
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need an explicit commitment from the Minister today. I will be delighted if she is able to give that—it would be fantastic. If there is agreement from Members across the House, everyone will be very relieved.
We have gone through the Government guidance and while that commitment could be read from the guidance, it is important for headteachers that it is made explicit. The Education Minister in the other place could not give that categorical assurance—[Interruption.] No, not this Education Minister—the Education Minister in the other place. It is important that the Minister gives that assurance today, and I am sure that she will. The Conservatives have shown that we can come together in the best interests of children, we can force change and we can make a difference.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Given the importance that the Conservatives are placing on the ban, why did they not impose it during the 14 years that they were in government?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman will know that we put guidance in place, but we have been explicit that it was not effective and that we needed to put it on the statute book, which is what we have been fighting for throughout the passage of the Bill.
Turning to the Government amendment on pupil admission numbers, I am grateful that progress has been made in recognising the importance of school quality and parental involvement in decision making. This is a victory to protect school standards in the face of an onslaught against them in the Bill. Parental preference and choice are fundamental to healthy competition and higher school standards, and we welcome the belated acknowledgment of that by the Government. It is the right thing for parents, who would be dumbfounded at the idea that the local authority could unilaterally cut the places at a high-quality, over-subscribed school at the end of their road, which was exactly what was originally suggested in the Bill.
The Government amendment is not perfect. It will still allow good school places to be cut as the adjudicator is required to take in account only the quality of education provided at the school in question and parental preference. That does not mean that school places are protected as they should be, but given that the Government have moved their position and taken into account some concerns, we will not vote against the amendment today. However, I would appreciate the Minister reassuring parents from the Dispatch Box that as the Secretary of State will be consulted on these decision, successful academies will not be penalised by local authorities merely by dint of not being run by them.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The GORSE Academies Trust runs schools in my constituency that have a very firm policy on the use of phones. Indeed, there was a security incident last year that put one of its schools under threat, but no pupil knew that that was happening because of that firm policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are academies and institutions that the Government should consult to understand exactly how they are enforcing a very strict policy?
Laura Trott
That is absolutely right. Enforcing a very strict policy is what now needs to happen off the back of the new statutory guidance.
Let me now turn to the issue of social media and the Government’s approach. One of the biggest safeguarding challenges facing children today is social media. If we are serious about protecting children from the extreme and violent content that they encounter online every day, the Government should do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do—protect children online—by voting for change tonight.
Parents are watching and they will not forgive the continued delay. Twice already, Labour Members have voted against a ban. Parents will be forgiven for not only feeling deeply let down, but being quite frankly baffled by what is going on. They have heard the Prime Minister promise action, yet once again he is preparing to lead his party through the Lobby to vote against it. If the Government truly wanted change, they could deliver it today. Instead, they have chosen to vote against a ban for a third time.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I know that this is an important subject for the right hon. Lady personally, but Labour MPs have not voted against a ban; they have voted for a consultation. They have voted to listen to parents, young people and charities and to learn lessons from what has happened in places such as Australia and Greece. Surely basing this policy on evidence is the right thing to do.
Laura Trott
I respect the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that the Government consultation is not on how to implement a social media ban, but on whether to do one at all. That is not good enough. It also says in the consultation that TikTok is good for children because they can post dance videos. I do not believe that that is taking the issue seriously, and I do not believe that it commits to firm action. That is why Labour MPs who care about this issue should vote with us today.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that action and a ban will not necessarily be the same thing? This is a really nuanced policy area. Quite recently, there was a huge online joint letter published by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and many others. It argued that although serious action is needed to tackle addictive features, safeguarding problems and violent content online, as we all agree and as she is saying, a blanket ban has significant drawbacks. It is right that we really look at the evidence, consult nationally and get this right.
Laura Trott
There is a huge coalition of charities backing a ban. We have tried to police content online, and it has not worked, but we know that policing age will work and make a difference. This is urgent; there is no time for delay. Real harm is happening and children are dying. We must act, and a ban is the most effective way to do that.
Sir Roger Gale
Let me try again with the question that I put to the Minister. We have the opportunity today to carry a motion tabled in the other House that would introduce the ban. The can is being kicked down the road. We cannot have consultation indefinitely. The question on the consultation paper is not, “How do we do this?”, but, “Shall we do it?” That is not necessary—am I right?
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Action this day—that is what is required, and that is what we are pushing for.
Sean Woodcock
The right hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I ask her the same question that I posed earlier: if this is so important, why did the Conservatives not get round to doing it when they were in government for 14 years?
Laura Trott
The rise of social media really came about in a serious way in 2015 or 2016 with the rise of front-facing cameras. We took action through the Online Safety Act 2023, which was a huge Act in pushing forward the safety of children, but it has not been effective in policing content. It has not been enough, and we need to go further. We now need a social media ban for children.
Let me say once more: I will not give up this fight until the Government tell the House what they will do and by when. I hope that that comes tonight—the Minister indicates that it may come later in the other place—but I will not give up, and neither will the thousands of people who have joined the brilliant “Raise the Age” campaign, which has been speaking so powerfully for frustrated parents across the country.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The shadow Minister is absolutely right. The inboxes of all Members across the House have been filled by parents who feel passionately that they need help to be able to control their children’s use of things online. They need the Government to step in and say, “You are actually not allowed those apps.” I am a parent myself, with young children, and as parents we cannot be over their shoulder all the time watching what they are seeing online. We know that what they are being given by the algorithm is so unsafe, damaging and harmful, and they deserve to be protected from that by the Government.
Laura Trott
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What she says speaks to the point that our two parties have been able to come together in the interests of children; it is just the Labour party that is standing in the way.
Frankly, I know that there are Labour Members who agree with us and who want the Government to stop promising action and actually start taking some. Given the events of this week, I suspect that many of them do not even trust a word their own Government say. [Interruption.] It is absurd that the Government continually promise urgent action, yet all they have laid before Parliament is an amendment that does not commit to any action at all and does not specify a timeframe. This is not good enough. In a terrible week for the Government, the Opposition have proved that politicians can make change by coming together in the interests of children to ban smartphones. We can do the same on social media. The Prime Minister has already made his Back Benchers defend the indefensible this week, and I urge Labour MPs not to let him do the same to them again and to vote for change this evening. We owe it to the generation of children who are being exposed to extreme and violent content every single day to do so.
Childhood is short, and children are being influenced and impacted by what they are being exposed to right now. Damage is being done now, and months and even years of delay mean a childhood lost for some, because once that content is seen, it cannot be unseen. Once those pressures take hold, they cannot simply be reversed, and the consequences can last a lifetime. This is not about action at some point in the future; it is about whether we act while there is still time to protect children who are growing up today, not years from now. Childhood is short, and we cannot give it back to children later, so we must protect it now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am surprised to not see Mr Adam Jogee on his feet, considering the level of chuntering he has been doing from a seated position. You do not wish to contribute formally?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. I appreciate that the guidance previously proposed was clear and that schools must take account of Government guidance, but where an issue is unequivocal—and I think the need for mobile phones to be absent from schools unless there is a clear need for an exception is unequivocal—putting the matter into legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance, and it provides clarity for the public.
However, what approach will the Minister take to the guidance accompanying this ban, particularly with regard to exceptions? There will be children who still need to have a phone in school for a variety of different reasons—for example, because they are young carers or because they rely on phone-enabled software for support with a disability or special educational need. At the Education Committee yesterday, one of our witnesses made an important point about how exceptions are to be treated when implementing a ban, which was that care needs to be taken regarding how the wider issues in the classroom are managed for children who have an exceptional need for a phone. Those issues include who gets to use the phone, what apps are allowed to be on that phone, and how children are kept safe from bullying in this context.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Chichester high school in my constituency has introduced Yondr pouches—I imagine there are many similar pouches. Children can take their phones to school, but then they have to put them in those lockable pouches. They do not have access to them throughout the day, and they can unlock the pouches when they leave school. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a potential solution, especially for children who need their phones for health reasons or who, for other reasons, need their devices to make sure they can be in school?
Helen Hayes
I agree with the hon. Member—and, indeed, with the Opposition Front Bencher, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—that the ban must be on the basis that phones are not in bags during the school day, but are removed from children while they are at school. The point I was making was really about children who need to have their phone with them. There will be some exceptions, and the question of how that is worked through in the guidance is important for protecting those children from the pressures that might come with being the only child in a classroom who has access to their phone. Drawing up a list of exceptions is more straightforward than deciding how those exceptions should be managed in a classroom environment, so I hope the Minister will be able to provide some assurance on that point.
I now turn to Lords amendment 38. Yesterday, in the first of two evidence sessions on screentime and social media that are designed to enable the Select Committee to contribute to the Government’s consultation, we heard from three companies: TikTok, Meta and Roblox. Next week, we will hear from Snapchat, which withdrew from yesterday’s session at very short notice, much to our disappointment. We also heard from academics undertaking research in this area.
It was absolutely clear from the evidence those three companies gave us that we cannot continue to rely on the companies whose platforms are causing the problem to regulate themselves out of it. I think that parents and carers across the country would have been incredulous had they listened to our evidence session yesterday. We heard Meta say that it did not believe that its apps were in any way addictive, when it has just lost a court case in the US on that precise point. We listened to TikTok say that it was horrified that children were coming to harm on its site, as if that was a rare exception, when a police investigation found that such harm is widespread. We heard Roblox express confidence that exploitation cannot happen on its site, when an independent expert recently said that the risks of children coming to harm on Roblox were so high that children should never be left unattended while using it.
Sam Carling
My hon. Friend is citing some shocking evidence, and I will be sure to listen to the Committee session later. On her comments about Meta not believing that its platforms are addictive, does she agree that the problem goes more broadly than just children? Lots of adults have issues with social media addiction, and a social media ban for children would not necessarily solve that. We need to look at broader solutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I remind her that we have to conclude at 4.16 and I need to get five or six more Members in to contribute. I hope that she will be coming to a conclusion soonish.
Helen Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.
Helen Hayes
I will not take any further interventions because of the time left, if that is okay.
The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is clear, so I welcome the Government’s consultation, the measures in the Bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation.
In our evidence session yesterday, we also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are get to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox. It is not a social media company, because the primary activity on its platform is gaming, and it appeals to very young children. On Roblox, children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature and they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban, because it is not a social media site, but there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and of how children can be protected from that.
One of our witnesses questioned whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. In Australia, young people do not have major exams at 16, and there should be consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or older threshold would be better. Next week, we will hear from parents and parent-led organisations, including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views, and we will explore their disagreement and common ground through our questioning.
When—not if—we regulate to remove the pernicious influence of social media from children’s lives, it is vital that our regulation is effective, and I am frustrated by Opposition Members’ lack of acknowledgement of that complexity and the importance of not only acting, but getting it right.
Finally, will the Minister set out a clear timescale for regulation under statutory instruments, so that parents can be assured that there is an end point to the debate on this issue and that action—the right and effective action that we need to keep our children safe—is coming?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To enable all Back Benchers to get in, there will be a speaking limit of three minutes. We now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has kindly said that she will speak for less than five minutes.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I will try my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every family has the ambition to send their child to the best school—preferably close by—so we welcome the Government’s moves to strengthen the duty of the schools adjudicator to take account of quality of educational provision and parental preference in an area before changing a school’s pupil admission numbers. We also welcome the duty to consult. We remain concerned about conflicts of interest and how things will work in practice. Ultimately, if a high-performing, popular school has space to expand and there is a demand for places, ideology should not get in the way of it doing so.
I welcome the Government’s decision to finally ban access to mobile phones during the school day by putting existing guidance on a statutory footing. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to all the campaign groups and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for all her work on this issue. After more than a year of parents, teachers and pupils begging, this simple change will have a big impact. I am just sorry that it did not happen sooner and was described repeatedly as a gimmick.
Classrooms will be a step closer to becoming a place of focus and learning, free from the addictive and demanding world of social media, but they need the right equipment and procedures in place. With school budgets stretched to breaking point and some parents not necessarily able to afford pouches, I urge the Government to ensure that all schools have the necessary support to properly ensure that every classroom can be smartphone-free.
I welcome the reasonable adjustments alluded to in the guidance, but I would also welcome clear assurance from the Minister that for those pupils with medical needs or caring responsibilities, schools will be at liberty to make appropriate exemptions and accommodations that are not onerous or discriminatory towards individual children. Similarly, school leaders should have the freedom to ensure that children with SEND who may need assistive technology have appropriate access to a device. I strongly endorse the comments on exceptions by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Providing clear advice to teachers and headteachers on a regular basis would be very helpful to alleviate those concerns.
While we can celebrate a big victory for smartphones in schools, the damaging impact of addictive social media and gaming and of chatbots extends far beyond the school day. Each day, more children are coming to serious harm because of social media, while the big tech companies come to this place, as we have heard, and brazenly deny responsibility for the damage that they are causing to the mental and physical health of our children and young people.
Social media is encouraging insidious, brain-numbing behaviour in all of us—not just children, as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said—through its infinite scrolling features, frequent dopamine hits and addictive algorithms. Its content endangers the people we are here to protect. Just last week I spoke to a constituent whose child cut themselves after seeing a video on YouTube shorts that said it could help relieve stress. The longer we delay, the more we hear such stories.
I urge the Government to formally recognise in the legislation that both addictive design and harmful content have created this toxic cocktail. If we cannot accurately identify the problem, how can we tackle it? I know that Ministers want to help our children, but we need them to do more. We have been debating this issue for more than a year now. The now Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), put forward his own Bill on social media harms more than a year ago. The time is now to gut addictive algorithms, ban social media giants from collecting our children’s data and make big tech responsible for the harmful content it is pushing on our children. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to come forward with a concrete commitment to action and a swift timeline for implementation.
I agree with the Minister that we need to go broader than social media, to gaming and chatbots. Some of that wider remit was acknowledged in a very positive amendment from Baroness Kidron in the other place, which the Government rejected. The Liberal Democrats have put forward broader, more nuanced amendments in the other place beyond just a blunt social media ban, but they have been repeatedly rejected. This is not about party politics, as some have suggested. We are all trying to come together towards the same aim, but we need a concrete commitment in any amendments that are brought forward to a date when the Government will take action. We cannot wait for a drawn-out consultation that asks if, not how, we should ban social media. Our children who are affected every single day cannot wait for action to be taken.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak briefly this afternoon. I wanted to speak because we had a tragedy in my constituency, where a young boy of just 13 years old was stabbed and brutally murdered in a local park after a terrible series of incidents of online bullying. This is a very serious matter and I appreciate the Government’s work on it, and the consultation, which has enormous potential. I pay tribute to Olly’s mum and dad, who have been campaigning extremely hard on this matter, to tackle both the scourge of knife crime and social media and online harms. They have argued very powerfully for a ban at 16, but I am aware that there are contrary arguments, as the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), mentioned earlier. The Molly Rose Foundation and other campaigners take a different view. I hope that these matters can be addressed fully in the consultation, and that we can look in great detail at some of the challenges, because these are extremely difficult issues for our society and for parents.
In my own life as a parent, I have found it difficult to fully comprehend the level of risk that is out there. We all face the challenge that social media, gaming and other technologies move very quickly, so it is important that we look at gaming and a range of other matters. I look forward to the consultation exploring this issue fully, looking in depth and, hopefully, answering the pleas from all the parents involved in the campaigns, because this is such a serious and important issue. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Minister, and with the Government as a whole, on this matter.
On the matter of phones, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s action. It is important to see this issue from the point of view of parents, children and schools. Schools have to implement the ban, and the Minister has rightly set out how today’s amendment will give clarity to schools so that teachers will understand precisely what is meant. It will give greater signposting to taking action on phones in schools and, as a result, protect children. That is hugely important, and I very much welcome the Government’s work on this matter. I appreciate that other Members want to get in and that time is limited.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I was very sorry to hear the story that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) shared. I will speak about a different aspect of the Bill: schools and admissions.
Good schools, and the good teachers who run them, are exceptionally precious. At its best, a good school truly can transform the lives of its pupils by fostering their natural talents, by helping equip them to tackle challenges and by expanding their intellectual horizons. When good schools are working well, they should be able to grow, so that more parents can choose to send their children to a school where their talents can be cultivated and their interests encouraged. That is a simple principle—one that Members from across the House, and indeed everyone everywhere, should be able to agree to.
A good education should not be the preserve of only those children who have parents who can afford to pay for one. Enabling more pupils to attend the best schools in the state sector means that that kind of education can be offered to more children, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has set out, the powers that this Bill will create on pupil admissions will achieve precisely the opposite. They allow the Government and regulators to limit the growth of good schools, or even force them to shrink, in order to make sure that schools that are performing less well can stay open. The most generous interpretation of the Government’s intentions is that this change is being made in the name of bureaucratic convenience.
As the number of pupils entering the school system falls, it is true that local authorities will need to make decisions about which schools remain open and where. The Government Minister responsible for defending this legislation in the other place said that the proposals are
“very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 2026; Vol. 855, c. 541.]
Even if that was the case, it would be completely absurd to tackle this problem by limiting the growth of good schools in order to make life easier for bureaucrats in local government, and for headteachers at schools that are not performing well. Wherever possible, surely we should be enabling the growth of good schools so that they have the capacity to take on more pupils, if and when schools that are performing less well need to reduce their numbers. If parents make decisions that they believe are best for their children, who are bureaucrats to tell them otherwise?
In practice, limiting the growth of good schools will keep more children trapped in failed schools for longer, deny them the opportunity to flourish and deprive them of the firm foundations for life that a good education can provide. Even if this was being done in the name of bureaucratic convenience, it would be grotesque, but I fear that the reality may be even worse. Since this Government came to power, we have repeatedly seen the Department for Education take steps that undermine the progress made by the last Government in this area, including by making it harder to turn failing schools into academies.
Time and again, we have seen this Government put their ideological instincts ahead of what works in practice. Regardless of whether their proposals are motivated by ideology or convenience, the result will be the same: fewer children able to attend good schools, depriving them of the strongest start in life.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The House of Lords has identified clear gaps and proposed practical solutions, and has sent improvements back to us. The Lords has acted to put in place clear safeguards, and the Government respond by stripping them out and pressing ahead regardless. Let us take Lords amendment 38. The Lords were clear that they required action to protect children from harm online, including stronger age assurance and a clear expectation of progress within 12 months. The Government have chosen to strip that out, and replace it with a broad power to make regulations at some future point. If the Government agree that there is a problem, and Ministers clearly do, why remove the mechanism that would ensure something is actually done about it?
Similarly, Lords amendment 102 was straightforward. It said that high-performing schools delivering good outcomes and in demand from parents should not have their admission numbers reduced unless that decision is necessary and proportionate. The Government have rejected that safeguard. Instead, they offer softer language, asking the adjudicator to “have regard” to certain factors, but “have regard” is not a protection. It does not guarantee that parental preference will carry any weight. I ask the Minister directly: why remove a clear safeguard for high-performing schools and replace it with something that offers far less certainty? Why take out measures that provide clarity, certainty and protection, and replace them with looser powers and softer language? Once again, we see the same approach—sensible safeguards that have been put forward are being swept aside by this Government. That is why I cannot support the Government’s position at this stage, and why I urge Ministers to think again.
Sir Roger Gale
I have a very personal interest in this: I have five grandchildren, ranging in age from 15 to nine, and there are another five Ukrainian children in roughly the same age group living with my family. I want to see all of those young people protected. I understand peer pressure only too well. I understand that if one child has a smartphone, every child has to have a smartphone, or they feel left out. However, I know from all the surveys that have been carried out that the overwhelming majority of young people are crying out for guidelines, and for the ban that will make them all feel the same, and not feel excluded.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, we have the opportunity in the House of Commons, through this vehicle that is available to us, to take action this day, not in three months’ time, six months’ time or two years’ time. If we do not take this opportunity, a generation of young people will suffer, and we will be responsible. There is no need for that to happen.
Geriatric though I may be, I understand the difference in definition between a smartphone and a brick phone. It is perfectly possible for any child who has to have a phone to have a brick phone, at very modest cost, so that they can communicate on medically essential matters, or if there are caring issues. That is not a problem. We are not talking about brick phones; we are talking about smartphones.
Helen Hayes
I hesitate to intervene, but I think the right hon. Member perhaps has not understood that children with a modern hearing aid, for example, use an application on a smartphone, which cannot be put on to a brick phone. That necessitates having a smartphone in the classroom.
Sir Roger Gale
I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions, where they are medically necessary. I do not believe that is a problem. I am saying to the Minister that we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate; do it!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Patience is a virtue, and as we have made up time, the final Back-Bench speaker will get five minutes. I call Damian Hinds.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones.
On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations.
There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to.
On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot.
I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the light. The Minister, whom we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved—and presumably it has now been re-solved, as the Government have come back to the issue—but I have to say that that is not what children say. What children tell us, both informally and when they are answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools, is how often lessons get interrupted, teachers are filmed, and bullying and other stuff happens at break times and lunchtimes. We need to act. Of course, there can be individual exceptions for those using assistive and adaptive technology, for young carers, and for others, but the one exception that we must not have is on the type of ban.
The critical question is about having a policy of “not seen, not heard”. Every school in the country, pretty much, already has at least that, but I am afraid that it is not effective as a ban. If you have this thing in your pocket, or in your bag at your foot, it is still there, and you feel its presence. If it vibrates, you might actually feel it, physically; but even if you do not, you feel that compulsion towards it. The only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the child. The “not seen, not heard” approach does not work.
The main argument for saying that we have to allow “not seen, not heard” is about cost. I understand that. Pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned, do have a cost, but we do not have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing this. I mentioned the Petersfield school in my constituency, which has a phones-away-from-children ban, and which uses a simple device—a plastic box that can be purchased in most large-format Swedish retailers. That is locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes, until the end of the day. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts, with numbered slots in which each child puts their phone, but the sum total cost is very reasonable.
I want to answer the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), who is no longer with us, so to speak. He asked why had we not taken this measure when we were in government. That is a perfectly reasonable question. There are two reasons: first, the issue has become more acute; and, secondly, the attitude of headteachers. It has changed. We have gone from headteachers and their representative bodies saying, “The best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban,” to them saying the exact opposite—that the best way to support schools and headteachers is to have a ban written into law.
Damian Hinds
I think that would try Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Today is the day that we can take action on those two points.
Olivia Bailey
I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate, which I found very engaging. I will try, in the few minutes that I have, to respond to some of the key points made.
I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who asked some really important questions, in particular on the matter of medical and other exemptions, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) also asked about. I seek to draw Members’ attention to the guidance that is available, which is very clear that schools are able to use their judgment to make exemptions where appropriate, in medical situations or otherwise. I think that is the right and proportionate thing to do. I am, of course, happy to keep the application of this policy under review; it is obviously a great strength of the nature of statutory guidance that we can keep it under review.
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration about the unwillingness of Opposition Members to engage with the nuance and variety in the debate on social media, unlike us. We are properly and rightly looking at a range of options. We must do so, in order to act decisively, as we are determined to, in order to keep our children safe online.
The hon. Member for Twickenham also asked me for a clear declaration that we will act. I feel that I gave such a declaration in my opening speech, but I will repeat that our consultation is broader than the amendments before us, and enables us to act on a wider range of harms. I am sure that we will continue to discuss this point, but I have been extremely clear that the Government will act, and will act swiftly.
Olivia Bailey
I apologise, but I am going to make progress. I am happy to discuss this with the hon. Lady at any time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) rightly paid tribute to Olly’s mum and dad. I have had the huge privilege of meeting Olly’s mum. No parent should have to endure what his parents endured; their huge courage in campaigning in their son’s memory is truly admirable.
We heard contributions on the proposals on pupil admission numbers from the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I want to be clear that we want to see good schools expand, and we want a great education for every child, but we have to be realistic: in an age of falling rolls, it is possible that this power may be needed to protect the principle of a great education for every child. We have been very clear, through the safeguards that we have put in place in our amendments, that parental choice and the quality of the school will be paramount in this decision making.
The right hon. Members for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), discussed phones in schools. I like the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, too, but I would gently point out to him that our guidance was published a few months ago, and that Ofsted has started inspecting under it this month. I urge him to be patient, when it comes to the implementation of the action that we have taken. I ask him to consider that we have already taken decisive action on phones in schools.
I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her tone on many fronts, and in particular for the support for our measures on phones in schools. I will repeat what I said in my opening speech in response to her direct question: the guidance, which we will now make statutory, explicitly says that the Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy in which pupils do not have access to their mobile phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, in between lessons, in breaks and at lunchtime. I do not think we could be clearer about our intent for this legislation.
It is right, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire has said, that different schools are implementing this ban in different ways, whether that is with a plastic tray in the classroom, a pouch or whatever it may be. We are very clear on this point.
Laura Trott
I really appreciate the Minister engaging with this issue. However, some people could interpret “not having access” as children not being allowed to touch their phone during the school day, but still being allowed to have it in their bag. Can she be very clear today that that is not allowed under this guidance?
Olivia Bailey
I can be extremely clear on that, as I have just been. We are categorically crystal clear that there is no access to phones at any point during the school day. The guidance says that. We have removed from the guidance that we have published any reference to any kind of “not seen, not heard” policy in the case studies. We are completely clear: no access to phones at any point during the school day. It is not for me to determine how a headteacher enforces their discipline and behaviour policies in their school, and this is ultimately a question of enforcement. I gently point out that we had to act to fix the weak guidance left by the Conservative party. I ask her to reflect on the fact that phones and social media were not invented in July 2024—her party had 14 long years to take the decisive action that we have now taken.
I hope that the time for party political games on this legislation is over. Fifteen months is too long to wait for the vital safeguarding measures for which we need the Bill to become law. There is agreement across the House that phones have no place in schools, and that we must act to keep children safe online. The Government are doing both, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote with us today.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I now suspend the House in accordance with the motion that we have just agreed. I will arrange for the Division bells to ring shortly before the sitting resumes.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 253 / Noes: 143 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motion:
That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.
Sarah Jones
It is with regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this Bill. The elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice, by substantial margins, to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us.
In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the Government agree that the enforcement of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate. Fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate use of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrats want early action on this, so we have brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of Royal Assent.
It is particularly regrettable that the Opposition have returned yet again to Lords amendment 359, albeit in modified form. The amendment is simply unworkable, and it is wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive Governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the Government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attack, but requiring the Government to in effect give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security. Their lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment that any responsible Government can or should entertain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the papers today, there are pictures of six ladies who are going to be executed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is in charge in Iran, because they protested in the streets for liberty and freedom. For those six ladies whose lives are on the line and for the millions of people in Iran who want freedom, I think the Government should proscribe the IRGC, and they should not delay in doing so. I say respectfully to the Minister that it is time to face the realities we have in this world.
Sarah Jones
None of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran. None of us supports the Iranian Government and none of us supports the IRGC. We have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, to prevent them from coming here and to take their assets where we can do so. The point is that this Parliament is not the place for a Government to say one way or the other what they are going to proscribe or not proscribe. That is not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way we are going to operate now. However, I get the hon. Gentleman’s point for sure. None of us supports the IRGC or anything it does, and we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths we have seen in recent times and, indeed, over many years.
In conclusion, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100. Let us send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Those in the other place have asked us to reconsider Lords amendments 439E and 439F, which compel the Home Secretary to review the proscription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, including the IRGC.
There can be absolutely no doubt about the threat that Iran and its proxies pose to this country and our national security. In 2015, terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling explosives on the outskirts of London. In 2020, amid protests in Iran, the IRGC sought to assassinate two journalists on British soil. Just last year, the IRGC was linked to an attempted attack on the Israeli embassy in Kensington, which was foiled by counter-terrorism police. The organisation has been linked to at least 20 credible threats in the UK.
Even beyond the direct risk posed by IRGC terrorism, the organisation is responsible for funding and supporting other extreme groups in this country, and has worked closely with criminal gangs to undermine our national security. We will be able to combat that threat only if we are willing to tackle it head-on, using every power available to us to do so. To that end, the very least we can do is make it harder for Islamist extremist groups to operate legally in this country. By proscribing the IRGC and other groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, Ministers would be able to protect not only those being attacked—actually, it is our Jewish community that we are really thinking about at this difficult time. These Lords amendments can only be a good thing. They would help to strengthen those protections.
When Labour Members were on the Opposition Benches, many of them agreed. In April 2024, the now Foreign Secretary called for exactly this policy. Yet now, they are refusing even to review the proscription of groups such as the IRGC, which fuel the Islamist cause and are directly linked to the Iranian armed forces. I urge the Minister and her colleagues on the Government Benches to change their minds and accept the Lords amendments. The threat is far too grave to be ignored. By burying their heads in the sand, they will not make the problem go away; they will only put our country and its people more at risk.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I recognise that, since the last round of ping-pong, a concession was made on youth diversion orders in the other place and we welcome that. We are disappointed that the Government have not made suitable concessions on fixed penalty notices. However, we do not seek to force that to a vote this evening. We hope to work with the Government and we will pursue other avenues.
The shadow Minister set out the case very well for the motion on the proscription of Iran-linked groups. Recent activities in this country give us further cause for concern. The rise in antisemitic sentiment on our streets and the way in which Iran is clearly seeking to foment discontent on our streets by funding activities that further antisemitic hatred and terrorist outrages should give us pause for thought. I would hope that Members on both sides of the House recognise that—I know that they do. Even though the Government are clearly not going to vote for the motion this evening, we will.
Sarah Jones
I hope that we are here debating this Bill for the last time. I know that Government Members earnestly want to see the Bill enacted so that we can deliver safer streets for all our communities. I thank the Liberal Democrats for not pushing their amendments to a vote on this occasion.
On the issue of the IRGC, I have been clear that no responsible Government who put the safety and security of the country first can give a running commentary on whether or not this organisation will be proscribed, and it is time to close down this debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) was absolutely right to mention the Jewish community; we are all deeply concerned by what we have seen happen to our Jewish friends and colleagues across the country in recent days, particularly in London. We are doing all we can to ensure that our Jewish community is kept safe. As the hon. Lady will know, we are investing to ensure that we have protections for synagogues and other Jewish spaces where we need it, and we are working with them to do everything that we can. The hon. Lady is right on that matter—I agree with her on it.
However, as to the question of whether the Government can be told in this place that we must immediately proscribe an organisation—that is not the way that this Government work. It is not the way that any Government have worked. I respectfully suggest to the other place and to Members in this place that the time has come to call it a day and to let this Bill pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.
After Clause 190
Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.—(Sarah Jones.)
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could get your guidance on seeking a correction of the record from today’s Prime Minister’s questions. In response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that Sir Olly Robbins
“was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment.”
I am afraid it is very clear from Sir Olly’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that he believed that pressure was put on him. I refer to Question 532, to which he said:
“Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing”.
I refer, too, to Question 580, in response to which he said:
“while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.”
I also refer to Question 615, in response to which he said that Philip Barton’s
“handover to me has contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about this DV process”.
I could go on. Strongly contrary to the impression that the Prime Minister wished to create, Sir Olly Robbins clearly said that his Department had been placed under pressure. I wonder if you can help explain to me how we might achieve a correction to the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As he will know, ministerial responses, including those of the Prime Minister, are not the responsibility of the Chair. However, he has put his point clearly on the record and the Treasury Bench will have heard it; if a correction is needed, I am sure that one will be brought forward.
PETITIONS
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I present a petition about Aylesbury United football club on behalf of residents in Aylesbury and the villages. Aylesbury United, affectionately known as the Ducks, have played a vital role in our community for well over a century, supporting both physical and mental wellbeing for tens of thousands of local people. The club’s future is bright—the club is now training up more than 600 kids aged five to 15, including a number of girls’ teams—but there is one major challenge. This year marks 20 years since the Ducks were evicted from their stadium on Buckingham Road and they remain without a home ground in Aylesbury. They are turning away kids because there are no facilities to accommodate them.
The petitioners ask
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the merits of Aylesbury United Football Club returning to a home ground within the Aylesbury constituency, and to encourage the relevant bodies to take the necessary steps to achieve this.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Aylesbury,
Declares that Aylesbury United Football Club, founded in 1897, has made an invaluable contribution to our area in fostering community spirit and promoting physical and mental wellbeing over more than 125 years; further declares that over 60,000 people have been positively impacted by the Club over the last 30 years; further notes that the Club’s players and supporters, nicknamed the Ducks, have been without a home ground in the Aylesbury constituency since their eviction from Buckingham Road in 2006 — a displacement that has now lasted 20 years; and further notes that the Ducks have long sought to relocate to a local ground.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the merits of Aylesbury United Football Club returning to a home ground within the Aylesbury constituency, and to encourage the relevant bodies to take the necessary steps to achieve this, thereby “bringing the Ducks home”.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003182]
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I present this petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Hazel Grove. It accompanies a similar petition for the residents of the constituency of Cheadle, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), with over 3,000 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Hazel Grove,
Declares that the green belt across Stockport and Hazel Grove should be preserved; further declares that brownfield sites should be prioritised for new developments; and further declares that adequate school places, transport provision, and GP capacity should be guaranteed for any new developments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to roll back its doubled mandatory housebuilding target for Stockport and thereby allow Stockport Council to deliver a Local Plan that protects the area’s green belt whilst developing the homes our communities need.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003183]
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on the River Brue and water regulation, following 203 sewage dumping events last year, which lasted 2,716 hours. I also mention the work done by groups such as BrueCREW, Somerset Wildlife Trust and Somerset Eel Recovery Project, which have campaigned to improve the river’s health. The petition declares
“that the River Brue is a valued ecological area that supports local trout, eel and other fish populations.”
The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to take further action to save the River Brue catchment, starting with replacing Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator, and enforcing full transparency on sewage discharges.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that the River Brue is a valued ecological area that supports local trout, eel and other fish populations; further declares that the River Brue was polluted by sewage 203 times in 2025 lasting 2,716 hours; further notes with concern the high phosphate levels in the Brue; further notes the work done by groups such as the Brue Crew, Somerset Wildlife Trust and the Somerset Eel Recovery Project to campaign for the River Brue’s health; further notes the use of the River Brue for recreational use and wild swimming; further declares that the Government should replace Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator; further declares that there should be full transparency on sewage discharges including mandatory reporting of volume as well as duration; further declares that there should be a shift to public benefit models for water companies that are mutually owned by customers and professionally managed to ensure profits are reinvested into infrastructure; and further declares that action should be taken to close loopholes that allow water company executives to avoid bonus restrictions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take further action to save the River Brue catchment, starting with replacing Ofwat with a stronger unified regulator, and enforcing full transparency on sewage discharges.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003189]
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition in support of my constituents in Poole who are opposed to the threatened closure of Hamworthy fire station. This petition sits alongside an online campaign led by the Fire Brigades Union, signed by over 16,700 people, and relates to wider proposed closures across Dorset and Wiltshire of eight stations, which risk longer response times for residents and more dangerous conditions for firefighters. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to find a solution that will prevent the closure of Hamworthy fire station.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Hamworthy Fire Station provides essential emergency cover not only for Hamworthy, but also for Upton, Lytchett Minster, Turlin Moor and the wider Poole area; and further declares that Hamworthy Fire station must remain open to support the local community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to withdraw Hamworthy Fire Station from the closure consultation and to abandon any proposal to close it.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003190]
Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
In the United Kingdom, more than 600,000 people—one in a 100—live with epilepsy and every day around 80 people are diagnosed. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, abbreviated as SUDEP, is the term used when a person with epilepsy dies suddenly and unexpectedly. At least 21 people die every week in the UK from SUDEP, and even that is an underestimate, with epilepsy deaths believed to be under recorded. I will raise two key themes in this debate: first, the SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication and understanding gap, and secondly, the inherent systemic failure to prevent deaths following prevention of future deaths reports. I will conclude by outlining my key asks, which are needed for lasting and meaningful change.
The causes of epilepsy-related deaths range from prolonged seizures and accidents to drownings and suicide; however, SUDEP is a devastating worst outcome, accounting for half of all epilepsy fatalities. According to the charity SUDEP Action and the Epilepsy Research Institute UK, the highest rates of death are in areas of deprivation and among vulnerable groups, such as those with worsening mental health, people with learning disabilities or autism, pregnant women and children. SUDEP affects all ages, but we know that it disproportionately affects the young, with a peak in people’s 20s and 30s.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House tonight. I have been asked to come along on behalf of my constituent, James Nichols, who lost a dear friend in just that age group to SUDEP and has been a tireless campaigner on the issue ever since. He explained to me that the really tragic thing about SUDEP is that it can often come somewhat out of the blue through breakthrough seizures after an individual has not had seizures for many years, which can make it a particularly traumatic experience for loved ones and family members. Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps touch a bit more on what we can do to support family members?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I am going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand and, like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), I am here to represent my constituents and those who are affected by this issue in Northern Ireland. SUDEP affects one in 1,000 people with epilepsy annually, which includes many cases in Northern Ireland, yet many families say that they are unaware of the dangers of these night-time tonic-clonic seizures. Does the hon. Member not agree, as he to what the Government need to do, that more must be done to educate patients and family members to ensure that the information is known and that precautions can thereby be taken?
Olly Glover
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that awareness raising and increasing understanding are key priorities in dealing with SUDEP and epilepsy in general.
Patients with epilepsy carry a risk of premature death that is, on average, two to three times higher than in the general population, as has been outlined by Frontiers in Epidemiology. What is most devastating is the knowledge that 60% of epilepsy-related deaths each year are believed to be preventable, according to the European Journal of Neurology, with SUDEP accounting for many of these deaths.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this really essential debate to the House. My constituent Emma Taylor tragically lost her daughter at the age of 19 and she now campaigns tirelessly for SUDEP Action as a policy champion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with her on the need for the Government to promote proper first aid seizure training?
Olly Glover
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I thank her for her tireless campaigning and offer my condolences for her loss.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage is the home to SUDEP Action, a charity that is local, national and international in its impact. In 1995, five bereaved women came together around a kitchen table to found the charity in tribute to Alan, aged 27; Matthew, 21; Natalie, 22; and William, 22—all of whom had died, with the condition unrecognised beforehand. Jane Hanna, Sheila Pring, Catherine Brookes, Sue Kelk and Jennifer Preston faced despair together and chose to build hope. Since 2020, SUDEP Action has worked alongside the Epilepsy Research Institute to identify tackling epilepsy deaths as a No. 1 research priority.
The key challenge that SUDEP Action faces is that research insight does not reliably or quickly reach neurology consultations, primary care or social care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines exist, but services are inadequately supported to implement them. Jane Hanna from SUDEP Action told me that my own constituents face nine-month waits for a first seizure clinic and waits of nine to 12 months for follow-ups. She told me that waits of this magnitude, such as we are experiencing in my constituency, are unsafe. Her partner Alan waited for four months and died suddenly five months later. Waits such as these are not confined to my constituency; they are reflective of a structural problem across the country.
Free safety tools exist to tackle the lack of knowledge and the complacency around seizures and SUDEP, but systemic issues are difficult to shift because of poor access, poor medicine management, failure to communicate risk and poor recording of deaths. An independent review was named after Clive Treacey. Clive died at 47 in 2017 in a hospital setting where he had lived for 10 years. The report on his life is shocking for this country in the 21st century. The Minister might be aware of the debate secured last year by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I am pleased to see in his place tonight, and of the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who supported the Clive Treacey checklist.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing to light the Clive Treacey checklist, because it is a really fitting way to remember Clive. It is important to remember, however, that although it is named after Clive, he is not defined by his epilepsy; he was not defined by his learning disability and he does not need to be defined by his death. Clive loved to paint and was a really talented gardener, and his family are eager that he be remembered for those memories that they carry of him. I want to make sure that I take the opportunity to put that on the record.
It is also very clear from the Clive Treacey checklist that SUDEP risk for people with learning disabilities and epilepsy is three times higher—300%—but the actual risk of SUDEP can be cut by 84% if people have an annual check-up. That is part of what the Clive Treacey checklist advises NHS trusts to follow. I again thank the hon. Gentleman and invite him to do all he can alongside me—and, I am sure, many other Members—to make sure that every single NHS trust introduces and follows the Clive Treacey checklist to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his tribute to his constituent, and I look forward to working with him and others on this issue.
The checklist, commissioned by NHS Midlands and developed by SUDEP Action, is designed for commissioners and providers of care. There is hope that it will be red-flagged in annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, as the hon. Gentleman has said. Despite the existence of this high-risk cohort, most families were, like Clive’s, unaware of SUDEP and epilepsy risk despite learnings from earlier deaths. They were never given the information they needed, and the mistakes of the past continue to be repeated. Recent research by the European Journal of Neurology surveying neurologists found that only one fifth discussed SUDEP with all patients. That speaks to an unacceptable systemic failure. More than 20 years after national guidance was introduced, young people and their families are still being left in the dark.
So what needs to be done? SUDEP Action has developed practical safety tools to empower neighbourhoods: the SUDEP and seizure safety checklist; the EpSMon app, which helps people understand their personal epilepsy risks; and the Charlie card to support risk reduction and communication across care settings. We know that where the adult checklist is used, the rate of SUDEP conversations has risen from 20% to 80% and risks have fallen. But the challenges are vast. Progress is fragmented, it is far too slow, and at a time of rising inequalities all too often the risks are getting worse. The series of prevention of future deaths reports into epilepsy reflects broader patterns: missed opportunities; a SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication gap; a failure to act; and a culture that too often fails to listen to families.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Five years ago, my constituent Nadine tragically lost her brother Trevor to epilepsy. An inquest into Trevor’s death ruled that his healthcare team and prison staff at the prison that he was in had not carried out their duties, which led directly to his death. Trevor’s death, sadly, is one of many that highlight a clear unresolved gap in epilepsy care in custodial settings. Does hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to prevent epilepsy deaths in prison is through education and training, to ensure that no life is lost to epilepsy due to lack of awareness or understanding?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right to raise prison as another setting where people are often vulnerable and where more needs to be done in relation to SUDEP.
Sepsis, which has a similar history of systemic failure, will shortly benefit from a modern service framework co-produced with the UK Sepsis Trust. Meanwhile, neither epilepsy nor neurology is explicitly mentioned in the NHS 10-year plan. There is a mandatory national framework to protect unborn children from anti-seizure medication risks, but there is no mandatory national framework to protect people living with epilepsy from SUDEP and epilepsy deaths, despite 30 years of evidence and repeated calls for action.
SUDEP Action provides intensive assistance on 60 to 70 investigations of deaths each year and sees the toll of long, drawn-out processes and, far too often, a defensive culture by default. It also sees a painful accountability gap where inquests are not even held and families feel silenced. The complacency around SUDEP, seizures and epilepsy, which was first called out by Liam Donaldson as chief medical officer in his annual report in 2021, carries wider harms for communities and persists in too many places.
Moving towards my conclusion, I wish to outline some key asks for the Minister. There are hundreds more stories from families that I wish I could have shared today, but I always endeavour to be as brief and concise as possible in this setting. My thoughts are with all in the bereaved community, whom I stand by and will continue to campaign for. In order to effectively support the wonderful charities that are doing so much to prevent SUDEP and support families through this, I have four questions for the Minister.
First, will the Minister commit to developing a modern framework for SUDEP? This would require policymakers working on epilepsy to work with those with lived experience via SUDEP Action and to spread good practice. In addition to mandatory information on side effects from anti-seizure medicines, there must be a framework for person-centred information about SUDEP and seizure risk, as well as national training initiatives that support whole-system learning.
Epilepsy and SUDEP must be included in neighbourhood healthcare, integrated with acute hospitals, social care and community health settings, as well as in prisons as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, to maximise the opportunity for prevention. There must be safe levels of epilepsy specialist doctors and nurses in local areas. Improving the quality of the annual check for learning disabilities by including a SUDEP check for people with epilepsy would be a significant step forward in upskilling primary care.
Secondly, will the Minister commit today to arranging a meeting with SUDEP Action? Ministerial colleagues have offered engagement on prevention of future deaths reports with SUDEP Action, promising meetings in letters sent in January and February, but such meetings have yet to take place.
Thirdly, will the Minister support a national oversight mechanism in the Hillsborough Bill? Families have been campaigning for an amendment to the Hillsborough law so that there can be a single, permanent oversight body to prevent the same mistakes that have happened across different tragedies, such as Grenfell, the Post Office, Horizon and infected blood. It would track progress across Departments and public authorities, publicly report on failures, delays or resistance to reform, and prevent the repeated cycles of injustice that are seen after major disasters and scandals.
Finally, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit my constituency to see the work of SUDEP Action, a charity built by families and clinical champions from grief, sustained by courage and determined to stop deaths? I am grateful for the Minister’s time in this Adjournment debate and look forward to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this important debate. At the outset, I will say that I am happy to meet him to discuss all the action points he raised at the end of his speech—and as for where that meeting will take place, we can discuss that.
Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, or SUDEP for short, is a vitally important issue for those directly and tragically affected, and for many Members. We must learn lessons when deaths occur and make the changes needed. We must also ensure timely access to the right specialist support for people with epilepsy. We must tackle long waits for neurology appointments, and continue to build the evidence base, so that innovative treatments, such as medicinal cannabis, where clinically appropriate, are available in a safe and consistent way. I will set out the actions that we are taking with the NHS and partners to reduce risks as well as improve outcomes for people living with epilepsy.
First, there is a statutory duty for organisations to respond to a prevention of future deaths report issued by a coroner when their investigation identifies circumstances that create a risk of future deaths. That provides a clear mechanism for organisations to set out the actions that they will take to address those risks. Alongside the PFD process, it is essential that the NHS continues to strengthen how it identifies and acts to mitigate risk in day-to-day epilepsy care. That is why, when it comes to epilepsy, we are working with the NHS and partners to embed structured risk assessments and consistent risk communication in routine practice, so that known risk factors are identified early, addressed where possible, and discussed openly with patients and families, in line with best practice.
Cutting waiting lists, including for neurology services, is a key priority for this Government. We have committed to achieving the NHS constitutional standard, which is that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment, by March 2029. We have already delivered 5.2 million additional elective appointments in our first year in government. Waiting lists overall are coming down, but we recognise that they remain too high, with neurology remaining a particularly challenged specialty.
For patients with epilepsy, timely access to specialist advice, supported by clear referral routes and co-ordinated care across primary care, community services and hospitals, is critical to good outcomes. Nationally, NHS England’s neurology transformation programme developed a model of integrated care to support integrated care boards in delivering the right service at the right time to patients, as close to home as possible.
For those with refractory epilepsy who need highly specialised input, NHS England’s updated service specification for specialised adult neurology services is clear that specialised neurology centres must include services for the assessment and management of refractory epilepsy.
Progress is being made on the treatment backlog. Between February 2025 and February 2026, the number of incomplete neurology pathways reduced by over 10,000, the average waiting time reduced from 16.5 weeks to 15 weeks, and the proportion of patients seen within 18 weeks increased to 57.9%. We will continue to work with the NHS to improve access and reduce delays for patients, including those with epilepsy, and families.
Research is central to improving outcomes for people with epilepsy. The Department funds research into epilepsy through the National Institute for Health and Care Research—the NIHR—and, in the five years from April 2020 to March 2025, we committed almost £19 million to 15 epilepsy research projects. The NIHR welcomes applications on all topics, including epilepsy.
I fully understand why patients and families continue to press for safe and equitable access to medical cannabis, particularly for children with drug-resistant epilepsy. There is one licensed cannabis-based medicine, Epidyolex, that is available for prescribing on the NHS, where clinically appropriate, following clear evidence of its safety and clinical and cost-effectiveness. Most cannabis-based medicines that patients are seeking are unlicensed and have not been assessed for their safety, quality or effectiveness. Until the evidence base improves, the NHS will not routinely fund them, and clinicians will rightly be cautious about prescribing. That is why, through NIHR and NHS England, the Government are investing over £9 million in clinical trials of cannabis-based medicines for drug-resistant epilepsy, to strengthen the evidence and support consistent, safe decision making.
We know that around 30% of people with epilepsy have a learning disability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) set out, and that the risk of SUDEP is higher for those with a learning disability. The most recent “learning from lives and deaths” report found that epilepsy was one of the most common underlying causes of death for people with a learning disability between 2021 and 2023. That highlights how crucial it is that information and support for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability is tailored to their individual needs.
Dave Robertson
I thank the Minister for delineating everything that the Government are doing to support people with epilepsy. I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate a couple of months ago to talk about the Clive Treacey safety checklist. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), said at the Dispatch Box that he expects every NHS trust to follow that checklist. Does she agree with him, and will she send the message that all trusts must follow that checklist?
Mrs Hodgson
I welcome the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist. It is an important part of Clive’s legacy, notwithstanding the comments that my hon. Friend made about his legacy being much wider than that. We would encourage commissioners and service providers to use the checklist and its accompanying guidance as a key tool when designing services for their local populations, and to ensure that steps outlined in the checklist are followed whenever a patient experiences a significant change in their care. We hope that is being rolled out, followed and used.
At the national level, there are a number of programmes and tools supporting safer, more consistent epilepsy care. NICE guidance recommends that people with a learning disability have monitoring reviews at least annually, and information should be tailored and adapted. They should have access to specialist care and co-ordinated, multidisciplinary support. NICE is clear that where young people are transitioning into adult services, planning should begin early. While NICE guidance is not mandatory, the Government expect commissioners and service providers to take it fully into account when making decisions on how best to meet the needs of their local communities.
NHS England’s RightCare programme has developed an epilepsy toolkit to support commissioners and clinicians in improving epilepsy care and reducing preventable deaths. The toolkit makes structured risk assessment and risk reduction, and proactive conversations about SUDEP, a core part of guidance, and it signposts practical resources, such as the SUDEP and seizure safety checklist, to support consistent risk communication in line with NICE guidance.
Health Education England, which is now part of NHS England, has developed an epilepsy programme in collaboration with SUDEP Action. That includes evidence-based training modules, delivered through the NHS England e-learning for healthcare platform, covering practical diagnosis and management, medication adherence and SUDEP risk factors. Alongside that, Government-supported frameworks, including the national bundle of care for children and young people with epilepsy, are helping to drive more equitable access to timely intervention and rehabilitation.
In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for securing this very important debate; it is great to see it so well attended. I thank all hon. Members who took part in it and made interventions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Lichfield, and for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous). They made a number of very important points, and if I need to follow up on any of them with colleagues in other Departments or in my Department, I definitely will.
I also thank those with lived experience of epilepsy, and the families who have lost loved ones to SUDEP. Their courage in speaking out continues to drive change through the work that we do in this place. We will continue to work with partners across the health system to support people with epilepsy and, ultimately, reduce deaths from epilepsy.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Division
Deferred Divisions
The House divided: - Ayes: 380 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.