House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
The Government are committed to ensuring patients can access timely, high-quality care wherever they live in the United Kingdom, while recognising ongoing challenges. We are working with the NHS and devolved Governments to improve digital interoperability, streamline cross-border billing and support more joined-up care.
David Chadwick
Powys has no general hospital, so my constituents are dependent on access to English hospitals for the treatment and operations they need. However, last July, Powys teaching health board made the decision to extend waiting times for Powys patients awaiting operations, with the result that many have now been waiting years, often in agonising pain. Will the Minister meet me, Powys teaching health board and the new Welsh Health Minister to ensure Powys patients get the funding and treatment they need?
Preet Kaur Gill
I would welcome a meeting with the hon. Member. As he knows, decisions about waiting list management in Wales are matters for the Welsh Government, but I agree that patients in border communities should be able to access care as quickly and conveniently as possible.
John Lamont
For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, accessing NHS treatment can sometimes be more complicated than it should be. Some residents in the Scottish Borders are registered with GP practices in Northumberland, but their medical records are not always shared properly between NHS services in England and Scotland. The SNP Government refuse to allow reciprocal care, so will the Minister urgently work with the Scottish Government to ensure my constituents can be properly treated as close to home as possible?
Preet Kaur Gill
I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Member raises. NHS organisations on both sides of the border are working together to improve access for patients. NHS England is working closely with NHS Scotland to improve the compatibility of patient records. I believe that they must do much more and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We know that some patients prefer not to use online services. Online tools complement rather than replace existing routes, such as telephone or walk-in access. The GP contract requires online access to be available during core hours, which eases pressure on phone lines and reception staff as non-digital routes to access care. Under this Government, patient satisfaction with GP access has risen from 61% to 75%.
Dr Mullan
I understand why making use of the NHS app and online appointments is sensible and works well for many patients, but I cannot be the only MP to have heard from constituents—you may even have heard from your constituents, Mr Speaker—who struggle with that. They may not have a smartphone. I have met many elderly patients who simply cannot make use of online forms and too often GP practices do not make it easy for them to make appointments by telephone or by walking in. It is important that the Government make it crystal clear to all our GP providers, who I know are doing their best, that no matter how far we go with digital innovation, our patients must always be able to access primary care through traditional routes, such as making an appointment by telephone or by walking in.
Stephen Kinnock
I am in violent agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is quite unusual. We are clear that patients should not be digitally excluded. The contract is clear that patients should always have the option of telephoning or visiting their practice in person. All online tools must always be provided in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, other channels for accessing a GP. In the past year, since April 2025, some 11.5 million more GP appointments have been delivered.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the staff at Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, particularly in the older persons assessment and liaison ward, where elderly patients are transferred from A&E and supported to either return home or transfer to different wards, another example of where Harlow is leading the way. How can we work together to support patients, like those on the OPAL ward, to access primary care if they are not confident in using some of the online tools that have been mentioned?
Stephen Kinnock
Once again, my hon. Friend has done a great job promoting Harlow, as we are all familiar with him doing in the House. We are improving GP access across the board. We have over 2,000 more GPs since July 2024 and we are launching a £102 million fund to build more clinical space in over 1,000 GP practices across England. A lot has been achieved, but a lot more needs to be done.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Labour Government were elected to build an NHS fit for the future. As Secretary of State, I am accelerating modernisation, but health inequalities start long before people access the NHS, so our focus on prevention in the 10-year health strategy is crucial, as is the work of this Government to address wider inequalities, including in housing, air quality and getting more people into work.
Perran Moon
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Oversimplified indices of multiple deprivation scores do not reflect the difficulties in caring for people in rural and remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. The Government are committed to neighbourhood health, but funding is getting caught up in integrated care board management structures and not flowing to GP practices, which should be delivering the care. How can the Government ensure that neighbourhood funding does not get held up by ICBs and flows to where it has the highest impact?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Funding must not be held up; it must get to the frontline to help patients, his constituents and people across the country. We are supporting ICBs to work differently with providers to identify and meet the needs of their communities on a new population-based approach. We are also reviewing the outdated GP formula for the distribution of funding to ensure that, for the first time in two decades, it will accurately reflect need and ensure that deprived communities get their fair share.
Will Stone
I represent some of the most deprived parts of Swindon, yet residents are having to travel across town to get access to healthcare. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the current model of care works least well for some of those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. I am pleased that we have joint commissioning arrangements of more than £28 million in place between the NHS and Swindon borough council, which will help to tackle issues for those most at risk. As I mentioned in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), we are reviewing the funding formula for the resources of GP practices for the first time in two decades. That is a crucial step to ensuring that we have a fairer distribution of resources across the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Health and Social Care Committee’s most recent report into healthy ageing highlights the unacceptable 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas of the country. It also points out that physical activity can be as effective, if not more effective, in treating the ailments of older life than pharmaceutical intervention. That is why we recommend that the Government target the least active groups to narrow that gap and embed activity into clinical practice.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. We are yet to have our first conversation, so let us have our first meeting, in which we might discuss this issue and more, as well as how to embed tackling inequalities into the whole of the national health service.
James Murray
I look forward to working constructively with the hon. Lady in her role as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. She is absolutely right to point to the importance of embedding prevention and healthier lifestyles in the way that we approach healthcare in this country. Although we talk a lot and passionately about the NHS, health is not just about the NHS; so many determinants of health start long before people access the NHS. In our 10-year health plan, there is a huge focus on tackling obesity, smoking and ensuring that people have more active and healthier lifestyles, because that is the way to reduce pressure on the NHS and ensure that people across the country live healthier lives.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the situation in her constituency. For all of us as MPs, our first job is to raise matters that pertain to our constituents, and healthcare is among the most important services that they receive. I will ask my team to look further into the points that she raises and get back to her.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that state-funded healthcare should be provided to all children based on clinical need, not economic or educational status?
James Murray
It is an essential part of our NHS and its founding principles that the NHS is available to all on the basis of need, not their ability to pay. That is a fundamental principle that we in the Labour party support. I know that some Opposition parties have been moving away from that recently and seeking to privatise the provision of our health service and move to an insurance-based model, but Labour Members believe that all people, including children, must get healthcare based on their need rather than their ability to pay.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he therefore share my concern at reports that some children are being turned away from state-funded healthcare because they are not attending a state school? Will he look into those reports and ensure that he makes provision for children who are not attending state schools to receive the healthcare they need?
James Murray
I am surprised by the hon. Lady’s remarks, because where a child goes to school should have no bearing on their ability to access NHS services. If she would like to write to me with further details, I would be happy to look into that matter.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recognised an appalling culture of medical misogyny and basic, everyday sexism within the NHS. As such, it was extremely disappointing to see that the new women’s health strategy was inferior to the men’s health strategy. The men’s health strategy received 60% more funding for new initiatives and has a named academic network, a formal research mandate aligned with the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and a commitment to publish a one-year accountability report with named, responsible organisations and formal timeframes for every action. It also commits specific funding to trials and pathfinders. As it stands, the women’s health strategy has none of those things. It contains no specific, measurable, time-bound target to reduce the backlogs in endometriosis care, nor does the NHS 10-year plan include endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome or fibroids in its prevention agenda. Can the Secretary of State explain why?
James Murray
The renewed women’s health strategy was a really important achievement under the previous Secretary of State, which updated the approach of this Government and reflected the differences in healthcare that women too often receive. If I might offer a personal reflection, since I have become Secretary of State, one issue that many women have raised with me is that they do not feel the health service adequately listens to them, takes their pain seriously, or gives them the right pathways to get the treatment they need. That must change, and this Government will change it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
This Government are committed to delivering the five-year, cross-Government suicide prevention strategy, and have published NHS England’s “Staying safe from suicide” guidance. Although progress has been made, we recognise that there is more to do and will continue to drive delivery of the strategy.
Liz Twist
The strategy said that it would
“reduce the suicide rate over the next 5 years—with initial reductions observed within half this time or sooner”.
However, we have now passed the halfway point, and sadly, those initial reductions have not been achieved. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that target is achieved by the end of the strategy?
Preet Kaur Gill
First, I commend my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning to improve mental health and prevent suicides—I know this is personal for her. We have made progress on implementing the strategy, including launching the near to real-time suspected suicide surveillance system to detect trends earlier. We have also committed £3.6 million in support for middle-aged men for areas that need it, ensuring that it is co-produced with families and local partners so that it is accessible. We plan to update the strategy, which will consider the evidence, the progress so far, and where there are opportunities to go further, but I would welcome my hon. Friend’s input into this very important work.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Early intervention saves lives, yet far too often support arrives only at the point of crisis, especially for young people in our education system. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school as well as mental health hubs in our communities, so that fewer young people reach that point of crisis?
Preet Kaur Gill
Yes. This Government have already recruited 8,500 mental health support workers, and more than 10,000 schools already have a mental health support worker. There is much more to do—we have to ensure young people are not left on a waiting list. We know that many face crisis before they can access care, and I would be keen to hear a bit more from the hon. Gentleman about the work he is doing locally on this issue.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Further to the last question, my constituent Emma Webb’s 16-year-old daughter Brodie tragically took her own life in 2020. Since then, Emma has worked tirelessly to raise thousands of pounds for charity, raising awareness of suicide prevention and launching DoItForBrodie, a project that aims to break down barriers. Can I invite the Minister to pay tribute to the work that Emma is doing, and to say more about suicide prevention among young people and children?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question, and I pay tribute to Emma. In the renewed women’s health strategy, we have committed to improving mental health support for women and girls. We must help women and girls to access mental health support in ways that work for them. We are promoting collaboration to improve women’s knowledge and healthcare professionals’ understanding of many women’s relationships and the barriers they face. There is much more to do, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend and to hear from Emma about what more we can do in this space.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In rural areas such as South Devon, agricultural workers and isolated young people often face distinct acute mental health crises, yet local mental health provision is stretched to breaking point. What specific targeted support is the Department providing to rural health boards to ensure that suicide intervention services reach isolated rural workers who cannot easily access standard workplace mental health schemes?
Preet Kaur Gill
The hon. Lady raises some important challenges, and the women’s mental health strategy will deal with some of them. Work is under way to develop a more comprehensive offer to address the critical issues that many young people transitioning to adult services face, including bespoke guidance in the revised Mental Health Act code of practice. The Government are also funding early support hubs, which provide free, open access to mental health support for young people up to the age of 25. Under the new developmental service specification, children and young people’s services will no longer be required to transfer or discharge a young person on their 18th birthday, where clinically appropriate.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to reach a record £16.1 billion, representing a real-terms increase compared with the previous year. That is supported by £473 million in capital funding over the next four years, including investment in new mental health emergency departments and community-based mental health centres. Dorset is one of the places across England to benefit from an expanded urgent and emergency mental health offer, with new mental health emergency departments planned.
Lloyd Hatton
This summer, two new state-of-the-art mental health facilities are opening in Dorset: Chaddesley House in Poole and Seastone in Bournemouth. That is thanks to continued investment from this Labour Government. However, the Forston clinic in the west of the county requires fresh investment to upgrade worn-out hospital buildings. Will the Minister meet local NHS bosses, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and me to discuss securing the investment needed to finally upgrade the Forston clinic?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that his constituents will be able to access care at the new facilities in Poole and Bournemouth thanks to the Government’s investment in the new hospitals programme, but there is more to do. We are committed to addressing poor-quality NHS infrastructure and ensuring that facilities such as Forston clinic are safe, comfortable and capable of high-quality care. That is why we are investing £30 billion over five years for the maintenance and repair of the NHS estate. We would be delighted to meet the hon. Members and local NHS leaders to discuss the issue further.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments about Forston, which some of my residents use. Evidence suggests that half of mental health conditions are established by age 14, and three quarters by age 24. In Dorset, our rates of hospitalisation for self-harm are almost twice the national average for 15 to 19-year-olds. I recently met Anya, a student at Lytchett school and deputy Member of Youth Parliament for Dorset. She has launched her “Health in Mind” campaign to ease young people back into school following periods of mental or physical health issues. It is so inspiring to see the work that she is doing, but will the Minister meet me and Anya to hear more about her campaign and to see how we can reintegrate children more successfully back into school after ill health, particularly mental ill health?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to Anya for the outstanding work she is doing. We are providing early intervention for children’s mental health and wellbeing by rolling out mental health support teams to every school by 2029. We are also investing £13 million to pilot enhanced training for staff so that they can offer more support to young people with complex needs such as trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating. If the hon. Lady writes to me with further details of Anya’s work, I am sure that we can continue that conversation.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
This Government’s focus on shifting from hospital to community will benefit millions of people and increase access to care. This shift is underpinned by new community diagnostic centres that now deliver faster, more accessible care at 109 sites, 12 hours a day, seven days a week. By 2030, we will have opened 120 new neighbourhood health centres. This expansion will transform community access for those who most need it.
Robbie Moore
Back in 2023, the Conservative Government signed off £3.4 million for Keighley to build a new health and wellbeing hub to improve care in the community. We have plenty of brownfield sites and funding is secured, but we are progressing at a snail’s pace, with progress being made incredibly slowly. We are now in mid-2026, and no planning application has yet been submitted. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can unlock the project and get it delivered?
James Murray
This may not be the first project initiated under the last Government that has not exactly run ahead at the fastest pace possible. We need to ensure that neighbourhood health provision is delivered as quickly as possible across the country. Our plans to increase the number of neighbourhood health centres will focus on areas with below-average healthy life expectancy, ensuring that rural towns and deprived areas receive help most rapidly. Part of that will involve the shift from hospital to the community to prevent ill health before it occurs, as I mentioned in an earlier response.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Last year I campaigned with the community and local councillors to save the Crystal dementia centre in Stourbridge. The centre provides community support for dementia patients and their carers, employs dementia advisers and assessors, and offers day services to many local people. Sadly, however, since we saved the centre Dudley council has sought to close it by stealth, preventing new assessments and preventing new users from joining. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a disgraceful way for the council to act, which goes against the Government’s mission to provide quality care close to home, and will he meet me to discuss the matter further?
James Murray
It does sound concerning that that decision has been taken. I urge all councils to work with their local integrated care boards and other parts of the NHS system to ensure that healthcare of that kind is provided in areas where people can access it, as part of our plan to make certain that healthcare is available throughout the country.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
Too many men lead too much of their lives in poor health and face barriers to access to health services. We have published England’s first ever men’s health strategy to get men speaking about their physical and mental health, and we are getting on with implementing it. From partnering with the Premier League to investing in the men’s health community fund, we are meeting men where they are, and helping them to lead longer, healthier lives.
David Reed
The NHS itself says that prostate cancer often has no symptoms at first, and Prostate Cancer UK says most men with early prostate cancer have no symptoms at all. The Government’s TRANSFORM trial exists because current detection methods are recognised as inadequate. Why does Government messaging still point men towards early symptoms that they are unlikely to have, while cancers that could be cured are becoming cancers that cannot?
James Murray
Let me be really clear in my advice to any man who is worried about prostate cancer, whether he has symptoms or not: go and discuss it with your GP. Testing is available when GPs recommend it, and I would recommend to no man that he should worry about it in silence, sit at home and fret about what might be going on.
The wider, targeted screening programme to which the Government have agreed is based on the evidence from weighing up the benefits of screening versus the harm that it can cause. We know that, at present, if cancerous cells are identified and treatment follows—for example, removal of the prostate—it leads to permanent urinary incontinence in 20% of cases and in two thirds of cases to permanent erectile dysfunction.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We inherited a decades-old system whereby patient voice was divorced from decision makers, with more than 20 organisations offering a place for patients and users to share feedback. The Health Bill will put the views of patients and users at the heart of decision making, ensuring that that directly informs those responsible for commissioning locally, and we will create a new patient experience directorate in the Department to ensure that patient and user insight directly shapes national policymaking.
Steve Darling
The abolition of Healthwatch will see the NHS and the Government effectively marking their own homework. Can the Minister please give some assurances about how the Government will ensure that the voice of those with learning disabilities, complex needs and dementia is heard?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the variety of needs that local commissioners need to take account of. That is exactly what the Health Bill will try to do, not by outsourcing that role to an outside body but by putting those views at the heart of what all commissioners do, which includes making sure that under-represented or often unheard voices do have a voice.
Munira Wilson
When Boots decided to close two pharmacies in Hampton, leaving a large number of elderly and vulnerable residents without local pharmacy provision, Healthwatch Richmond played a crucial role in ensuring that we got a new community pharmacy in the area. That locally led patient voice cannot be replaced by officials in Whitehall or our local ICB, which is about to suffer cuts of over 50% in its operating budget. If the Minister is really serious about championing patients, will she think again?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises an interesting example of somewhere where local commissioners have failed to provide a service or recognise when a service disappears. They can do that by using very different voices, rather than outsourcing that responsibility. Through the Health Bill, we have to make sure that commissioners do their job properly, which includes taking account of patient voice at a very local level.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Replacing Healthwatch will mean that, ultimately, patients will not have confidence in the commissioners. We have just heard one example, and I can offer many examples from York. Healthwatch York, which is phenomenal and is led by Siân Balsom, has produced reports that have brought about change. I plead with the Government to review clauses 64 and 65 of the Health Bill to maintain Healthwatch. It should not be an either/or. We need commissioners to engage with the patient voice, but we also need Healthwatch to have the independence to advocate for patients.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about her local healthwatch. There are certainly examples of where this approach works well in local communities, and we need to understand those. However, it does not work well everywhere, and it means that local commissioners are not empowered and are not held accountable for their job of making sure that the patient voice and experience is held locally. There is also nothing to stop ICBs undertaking that role as they see fit in their local communities in the future, rather than our dictating how they should do it through one particular body.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
While I support the Government’s desire to drive out bureaucracy from the NHS and simplify systems for patients, Healthwatch Hartlepool has done an outstanding job in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard as systems and services are improved. What can the Minister do to ensure that local expertise is retained in any new system?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. If that works well for his local system, there is nothing to stop it. How the ICB undertakes its role has to be determined locally to make it most effective for local circumstances, and it can undertake that role as it sees fit.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Over 85% of waiting list removals are made as a result of patient care, and since the end of the pandemic, unreported removals have been below pre-pandemic levels. Record levels of elective activity are being delivered by NHS staff, enabling us to cut waiting lists and meet our interim target of 65% of patients being seen within 18 weeks—the highest performance in over four years.
Graham Stuart
People in Beverley and Holderness want high-quality and speedy care, not massaged waiting list numbers that suit Labour narratives. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government had form on this as well, because the National Audit Office repeatedly found that the numbers were manipulated when waiting lists were similarly put on a pedestal. The Minister has the new Secretary of State by her side. Can she reassure people in Beverley and Holderness that we will have genuinely improved healthcare, rather than widespread manipulation and the cleansing of waiting lists to suit political purposes?
Karin Smyth
If anyone has forgotten, the last Labour Government left the NHS in a better state than it was in under successive Governments. That is not in dispute in terms of waiting list targets or, indeed, patient satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman might want to look again at the record.
The point that the Conservatives seem to be intent on following up forever is an important one. Some 85% of the activity is a result of direct patient care. Validation, both clinical and clerical, is a long-standing routine practice of waiting list management. At roughly 15%—it was slightly higher before the pandemic—the rate is no different now from what it has been before, so it is not the case that something different is going on here. What we are doing is making sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—I appreciate that there are many other local problems in his system at the moment—can be clear that we have the right people on the right list for the right care in the right place by the right clinicians. That is what we are determined to do.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her work in reducing waiting lists for GP referral to first treatment, and they are genuinely coming down. She will be aware, however, that that statistic does not capture the entire picture, particularly for people who require subsequent follow-up care—for example, women with endometriosis or women waiting for breast reconstruction following mastectomies. Could she say a little about any plans she has to capture those waiting lists?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is someone who does understand the way waiting lists are managed and so on. We do not have any plans to add any new targets to those to which we have already committed to give confidence to the British public that we can fix the NHS and get waiting lists down. However, he raises an important point about how we support patients to understand where they are in the system and where their care will be provided. Part of our commitment in the elective reform plan, which we outlined last year, is that patients are kept up to date about where they are being treated and why they are being referred to perhaps a more local service, and we will continue to try to do that.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Last month, the Health Service Journal reported that the elective waiting list target was met largely—largely—because a record number of patients were removed from waiting lists in March without receiving treatment. Can the Minister tell the House how many patients were removed in March and what happened to them, and whether she is satisfied that they definitely did not need treatment?
Karin Smyth
As I have said, I am still a bit perplexed about why the Conservatives are perpetually highlighting their inadequate management of the health service, and the idea that patients are simply referred to a waiting list and then left there for a couple of years, which is what happened on their watch. It is important that patients know why they are on a waiting list, and obviously that they get the best clinical care as quickly as possible.
I do not have to hand the exact figure for March, which will be published as part of the normal process of publishing the waiting list figures. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that completed pathways were 5.9% higher in the 21 months from July 2024, when we took office, to March 2025 than in the previous 21 months. Patients, as they deserve, are getting the right care in the right place under this Government.
Dr Evans
It is not just the Conservatives who are raising this issue; it is patients and the Health Service Journal. The answer is that 350,000 people—a city the size of Coventry—were wiped off the waiting list with no treatment, and that is 100,000 more than the month before. If there is genuinely nothing to hide, the Government should not worry about putting out the figures. Will the Minister commit to a review to find out what has happened to those 350,000 patients, or does she believe that waiting list targets should be met by removing patients from the figures rather than actually treating them?
Karin Smyth
This is an established way of managing waiting lists and waiting times. We are making sure that there is adequate clerical and clinical validation of the lists, and that patients are treated where they need to be, which may often be closer to home and in more local circumstances. Of course, we have committed to greater transparency than there was under the previous Government, and we will continue to provide that. I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am obviously very happy to look at anything arising from it. We are confident in the data that is coming out—as I have said, this is standard practice—and the figure is roughly 15%, as it has been over many years.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
Health visitors play a vital role in supporting babies, children and families. Under the previous Government, the number of health visitors fell significantly, which is why this Government have taken action. The upcoming professional strategy for nursing and midwifery will set out a bold direction of travel to strengthen health visiting across England. We have already made improvements with all post-birth health and development reviews now completed for over 80% of children nationally, which is the highest level since recording began.
Mr Charters
I recently gave evidence to Baroness Amos’s national maternity inquiry, sharing the trauma that my wife and I endured. Even as she carried her own burden after the birth, she was my rock, but the NHS was not. I was invisible. No one asked about me and I was left to carry it alone for months. Will the Minister please ensure that health visitors recognise dads and other non-birthing partners, check in on their mental health, and help them to access support so that no more dads are forgotten when families need them the most?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for being so brave and willing to share his and his wife’s birth trauma, and to talk about the lack of support afterwards, not just with Baroness Amos and her review but with the House today. I know personally how hard it is to do that, but I also know the huge difference it can make to Government policy. I am happy to commit to him today that the Government will absolutely look closely at all the findings in Baroness Amos’s review, and work with the national maternity taskforce to translate the recommendations into action. I am also pleased to confirm that we have recently updated our national health visiting guidance to include a high impact area on family mental health, with a clear focus on supporting both mothers and fathers.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is not just the number of health visitors that needs to be improved. Women report to me that they have skipped appointments due to negative experiences with health visitors, especially around breastfeeding. Will the Minister commit to improving the training of health visitors, so that women receive the best quality care?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes, I will. We are busy working on the 10-year workforce plan. The training of all the NHS workforce, including health visitors, is a big part of that. In my new position as public health and prevention Minister, I am particularly interested in the work of health visitors, especially with regard to supporting rates of breastfeeding. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the results of the breastfeeding survey were released last week and they showed substantial improvement.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
This Government are rebuilding England’s broken NHS dentistry system. The dental recruitment incentive scheme encourages dentists to work in underserved areas. Data on the scheme’s effectiveness will be published later this year. We are taking steps to increase the supply of dentists. For example, last week I was very proud to announce the first sustained expansion of dental school places since 2007, backed by £11 million a year. A total of 50 dental school places a year have been allocated.
Lisa Smart
My constituent John, who is from Bredbury, has been in touch because like so many others his local dentist is going private and for many families in my constituency, private dentistry simply is not an affordable option. Research by the British Dental Association found that 96% of practices are not accepting new NHS patients and the golden hello, worth £20,000 over three years, is not adequately compensating for a contract that loses them money every day. The scheme just is not working. It has recruited two dentists—two!—in the whole of Greater Manchester, neither of whom is in my constituency. What more can the Minister do to ensure that my constituents get the dentists they need, where they need them?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and she is absolutely right to raise the issue of the contract. The fundamental problem is that the units of dental activity system is a contractual system that does not work for NHS dentistry. That is why we had the absurd situation when we came into office in July 2024 of a £392 million underspend on NHS dentistry, because dentists were not incentivised. We are changing that. I have got the underspend down to £36 million. There is still a very long way to go and we need to reform the long-term contract to incentivise dentists to do NHS dentistry.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Access to NHS dentistry remains too difficult in rural and coastal communities such as South East Cornwall, where residents face long travel times and limited provision. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what next steps we can take to improve local access?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, as we know, there are areas in the country that are known as dental deserts. We have to fix that. It comes back to the fundamental issue of how we incentivise dentists to do NHS dentistry regardless of where they are in the country. There are particularly acute pressures in constituencies such as the one she so brilliantly represents, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss them further.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
We know that men are less likely to seek mental health support and that suicide rates are higher in men, and we are taking action to address that. Through our men’s health strategy, we have launched a partnership with the Premier League to improve mental health literacy. The suicide prevention support pathfinders programme will invest up to £3.6 million in areas where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide—the north-west being one area with some of the highest rates.
Mrs Blundell
I welcome the publication of the men’s health strategy, especially the measures in it designed to improve mental health outcomes. In a report that I recently sent to the ministerial team following an event I held with local charities and mental health service users, it became clear that the recommendations of the strategy need to be implemented quickly. What practical steps are being taken to implement those measures, especially in areas such as mine, where deprivation continues to affect the health of men and boys?
Preet Kaur Gill
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s report and thank her for all her work on behalf of her constituents. Locally, NHS and council partners are supporting delivery through services such as Thrive, Think Ahead and talking therapies, alongside community initiatives such as Male Health Survivors @ The Dale, and Andy’s Man Club Rochdale, supporting men’s mental health. We also have a mental health call for evidence, which is live until 12 July, seeking practical examples to tangibly improve outcomes and inform our mental health strategy. I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend on what more we can do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The suicide rate among men in Cumbria is twice the national average. There are a whole range of reasons why that is so, but one of them is clearly bound up in isolation and rurality. Would the Minister be willing to meet me and the Farmer Network as we seek to deliver mental health answers for people struggling? Some 25% of farmers are below the poverty line, often isolated and dealing with transition at times of enormous stress and anxiety with nowhere to turn. Would the Minister agree to meet so that we can address this particular cause of the appalling tragedy in our county?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We of course must not overlook the needs of farmers. Our men’s health strategy has invested an extra £3.6 million in suicide prevention work in the most deprived parts of England, where men face the greatest risk of suicide. We are partnering with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative, to meet men where they are on their terms, so that they do not suffer in silence. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman to hear more about the issue.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The NHS modernisation Bill will clarify and strengthen accountability in the NHS. It ends the fragmented accountability that we inherited on coming into government, and the reforms will restore clear democratic accountability, with the Secretary of State directly accountable to Parliament and the public. We will enhance local autonomy, ensuring NHS organisations are good partners and deliver for their local populations.
Lewis Cocking
We need more local accountability in the NHS. In Broxbourne we have seen thousands of new houses built, but when I and local Conservative councillors have pushed for new healthcare facilities to cope with the new demand, we have been refused. Can the Minister explain who will be accountable for that under the Government’s new system?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman highlights a situation familiar to many of us. One of the many problems that we inherited from the last Government was the fragmented landscape, so I thank him for his question. A key part of the responsibility of integrated care boards is commissioning for their populations to improve access to healthcare and reduce inequalities. For the first time, ICBs will be held accountable through the outcomes framework.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Jules Fielder from Hastings was diagnosed with stage 4 terminal lung cancer after doctors missed her symptoms, mistaking them for tennis elbow. As a non-smoking young woman, she did not meet the stereotype of what lung cancer patients often present with, but she was determined to channel her own tragedy into change. She campaigned for better, earlier awareness of symptoms among clinicians and members of the public, and she took that message to everyone she could. Together, we convinced Boots to roll out on-shelf awareness labels in the cold and flu medicine section to raise better awareness. Sadly, Jules passed away last month. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all of Jules’s campaigning, and commit to continuing her vision in the Department of Health and Social Care by ensuring we use every possible avenue to raise better awareness and catch cancer earlier?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that example of tremendous public service in the face of adversity. We are sorry to hear of Jules’s passing, and our thoughts are with her friends and family. My hon. Friend highlights the way in which people can access and determine outcomes and the fact that it is the responsibility of those working in local health services—in this case, the ICB in particular—to involve people and use their experience to drive the change that we want to see as part of the Health Bill.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
The NHS matters deeply to me, to every one of my colleagues and to people right across the country. That is why we are not wasting a second in driving delivery and pushing forward with extending prostate cancer screening to protect men at most risk, appointing a new national maternity adviser to give every woman and baby a safe birth, and accepting the Mann review recommendations to rid the NHS of antisemitism and all forms of racism. Last week, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, I took the NHS modernisation Bill through its Second Reading. As Secretary of State, I am determined to accelerate modernisation and build an NHS that is fit for the future.
Josh Babarinde
Following power outages at Eastbourne district general hospital that left operations and birth services suspended, hospital bosses submitted a strategic bid for more than £10 million to the estates safety fund to urgently fix the problem, which was rejected. How does the Secretary of State expect our hospital to provide consistent and safe care to patients if the power goes out?
James Murray
I am aware of the issues at Eastbourne district general hospital. Patients, staff and visitors deserve better than power cuts and electrical failures, which is why this Government have set out a credible and deliverable plan to deliver the new hospitals programme. I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that many of the problems that the NHS estate faces today stem from its being starved of £37 billion of capital investment in the 2010s, when the Lib Dems were in government.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The single patient record will give clinicians timely access to a single trusted record so that decisions can be made more efficiently, avoiding duplication, allowing them to spend more time with patients. The system makes all information on a patient accessible in a single place and will allow the sharing of patient data among different settings, as my hon. Friend outlines, and provide more flexibility in where services are made available.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), to their places.
The Secretary of State was in the Treasury when it imposed VAT on compassionate access medicine programmes, which provide some patients—especially children with cancer—with a vital last chance to access treatment. The policy has already led to the closure of one scheme. Will he now commit to abolishing this tax before any more follow suit?
James Murray
One thing I learned when I was in the Treasury is that decisions about tax are taken by the Chancellor at fiscal events, so I am certainly not going to start taking decisions about taxation in my new role at the Dispatch Box today. The broader point is how important it is to ensure that we have the medicines that we need for the future. That is why this Government are investing so much in research, development and innovation, to ensure that we have the drugs and medicines we need for the healthiest possible population in the future.
Stuart Andrew
I am sorry, but that was simply waffle. This matter needs decisive action now; these drugs are absolutely critical to some children. This cancer drugs tax has already closed one scheme, and companies are making real-time decisions now about whether to continue programmes in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must urgently get the Treasury to exempt compassionate use medicines permanently, so that the patients in most need can get these vital drugs, which, in some cases, are simply their only hope.
James Murray
I have explained the position about decisions on tax. More broadly, it is critical that we have the medicines of the future that we need. One of my very first visits as Secretary of State for Health was to a company that is using AI to determine new opportunities for medicines and drugs to tackle cancers and some of the other illnesses that people face. Making sure that we are investing in businesses—British businesses—to drive that innovation is crucial, not just to the future health of our country but to economic growth.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important matter. My sympathy is with the Lake family, and I commend them for their advocacy on this issue. I am acutely aware of the matter, having met the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and her constituents about this issue last week, in a very moving meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working with partners to see whether it is possible to set up a multi-condition evaluation, so that not only MLD but other rare conditions can be assessed alongside the existing screening programmes.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
A damning report by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that more than 15,800 deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments in 2025—I think we all agree that figure is an outrage—but the Government still have not published reliable data on long waits and corridor care despite promising to do so by the end of May. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government are trying to hide? Will they adopt Liberal Democrat calls to end corridor care within a year by freeing up beds throughout hospitals and in social care to end the blight of excess deaths in overcrowded accident and emergency departments?
James Murray
Let me be clear that corridor care is unacceptable and undignified and we are committed to eradicating it. We have begun by getting specialist teams to go into the worst offending trusts to ensure that we are getting rid of corridor care in those places. The NHS now has a national definition of corridor care for the first time ever. We will publish data on that shortly, because the first step in getting a grip of the problem is to be open and transparent about its scale.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she did formerly as a care worker. The Government inherited a social care system in desperate need of reform. We are taking action, including by providing over £4.6 billion of extra funding for adult social care by 2028-29 and developing the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers. Baroness Casey will submit her first report this year with recommendations on the further action we should take to move towards a national care service.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the fundamental long-term reform of the dental contract is vital to incentivising dentists to do NHS dentistry. I am pleased by how we have really put downward pressure on the underspend. As a result of that, we are on track to deliver more than 2.5 million extra dental treatments than in the same period before the general election.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Mrs Hodgson
People with Parkinson’s disease should receive support tailored to their individual needs, as symptoms and progression vary. The NHS provides specialist multidisciplinary NHS care informed by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time. People with Parkinson’s will benefit from our wider work to strengthen community services, reduce waiting times and improve co-ordinated, person-centred care closer to home. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department will continue to meet regularly with Parkinson’s UK to ensure that their voices are heard.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
Importantly, we have the £102 million utilisation and modernisation fund to enable more GP primary care estate. We have also committed to delivering 120 more neighbourhood health centres by the end of this Parliament, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s integrated care board has put in an expression of interest for that scheme. I am, of course, prepared to discuss that with him further.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
I commend my hon. Friend for her experience in this area. She tempts me to look at amendments in that space, but we do not have plans for that at the moment. The changes we made to NHS England placed the responsibility regarding health inequalities in all our policies firmly at the Secretary of State’s door. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about her other ideas on that. The Bill transfers that responsibility to the Secretary of State and we have no plans to make any changes in that area.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock
As I have said to hon. Members across the House today, there is a fundamental challenge around the dental contract. Units of dental activity do not work as a way of incentivising dentists to do NHS dentistry, so that, fundamentally, has to be fixed. I am proud that, thanks to the measures that we have put in place, 2.5 million additional courses of treatment have been delivered, compared with the same period before the general election.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Last year I had the opportunity to witness a transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure, which is a groundbreaking procedure for people who require valve changes. What I saw was quite incredible, and I recommend that all hon. Members go and see the procedure in St Thomas’ hospital. The patient, who was 82, had been bedbound for weeks, but after that 20-minute surgery they were fit enough to be discharged later that day and to look after themselves. That has a massive impact, not just on the patient’s life but for our NHS and the wider economy, as illustrated by Heart Valve Voice’s optimal pathway report. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that NHS systems identify patients and treat them?
Mrs Hodgson
I am aware of my hon. Friend’s significant work in this policy area, and she is absolutely right about the huge potential of TAVIs. Rising national TAVI activity and improved “Getting it right first time” pathways are part of our approach to reduce health inequalities and support more timely, equitable care. Through that work, the Government are committed to strengthening consistency in the diagnosis and treatment of heart valve disease, building on progress already made.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The relocation of Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is a £1.8 billion project, but none of the costs of the essential infrastructure to enable the new site to go ahead have been costed or budgeted for. The chief executives of the hospital simply have said that those costs will have to come from the new hospital programme contingency fund. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is no way to start a project of such size, scale and significance, and will he meet me to address those concerns?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is persistent in raising this issue—he has also raised it with me in the lunch queue. It clearly matters to him, and indeed to hon. Friends on my side of the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that he should not walk in front of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) when the Secretary of State is answering him. Please show each other respect.
James Murray
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath can rest assured that this Government are focused on the new hospitals programme, which is now credible and deliverable after what we inherited from the previous Government, and that we will get those hospitals in place.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday I will chair the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis’s first evidence session of our inquiry into endometriosis in the workplace. We will look at the experiences of women living with the condition and at the lack of timely treatment for chronic symptoms and how this impacts them in the workplace. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing our recommendations, once they are published later this year?
Mrs Hodgson
I commend my hon. Friend for her great work and that of the APPG in highlighting the importance of endometriosis and the impact it can have. We would be delighted to continue our close engagement with her and the APPG on this topic. We will consider the APPG’s findings carefully when they are published, as part of our ongoing work to improve diagnosis, treatment and support for women with endometriosis.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Epsom and St Helier hospitals need urgent funding now, not just patchwork repairs. In 2024, 600 operations were cancelled due to ventilation issues and the situation is only going to get worse, so will the Minister address the backlog of hospital repairs now to ensure that patients and staff have safe and modern facilities in Epsom and Saint Helier hospitals?
James Murray
Under this Government, we have increased capital investment in our NHS estates, including hospitals. Under the previous Government, that was sorely lacking, which stored up the problems we are experiencing today. There is a huge amount that we need to invest in, to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future, but we also need to reform the service, which is why modernising the NHS is a key priority for me and this Government.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
At the beginning of the year, Blackpool had the worst 12-hour A&E waiting times in the country, but thanks to the tireless work of local NHS staff, that has been reduced by 43%. However, we face some of the biggest challenges in the country with health inequalities, deprivation and the 21 million visitors that come every year, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the chief executive officer of our hospital to talk about what support we can get to bring these numbers down, so that residents in Blackpool can get the care they need?
James Murray
I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend to tackle health inequalities in his area. As he rightly highlights, our investment in the NHS and in the wider health of the nation is specifically about tackling health inequalities such as those that he raises, which affect the life chances of his constituents.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The crisis in social care is particularly bad in my constituency on the Isle of Wight, partly because of our unique geography but also because the Government have reduced funding to our local authority. Our council is now looking at discharging patients to the mainland, away from family and friends, which is completely unacceptable. Will the Government recognise our unique challenges as an English island and help provide a social care solution that recognises the challenges that we face?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member and I have discussed this issue, and I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that social care is provided in the most convenient way possible to his constituents and as close as possible to home. Obviously we are fixing a broken system, but we have delivered £4.6 billion more in funding, we are delivering the fair pay agreement, and we are working hard to ensure that we get adult social care back on its feet and fit for the future.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
My constituents were delighted to see the opening of the Great Sutton medical centre, but it has brought into sharp focus the need for an urgent upgrade of GP practices in Ellesmere Port town centre. I have submitted an expression of interest to the neighbourhood centre programme, and I wonder whether the Minister would agree to meet me to discuss that further.
Stephen Kinnock
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has submitted that expression of interest. We are now assessing proposals against criteria that include: a fit with our national neighbourhood health strategy; sound estate planning; deliverability; sustainability; and, critically, local need. We will be prioritising areas where there is low life expectancy and higher deprivation. I would be delighted to meet him to talk about his expression of interest and about our programme for revolutionising care in our country through the shift from hospital to community.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Unpaid carers play a crucial role in supporting so many people who need to draw on social care, thereby supporting our health service and our formal social care system, but they tell me that they are under immense strain and need more support. They are, of course, more likely to be women and to be older. Does the Minister recognise the urgent need for more respite care for unpaid carers, and will he take action to provide it now, rather than waiting a few years for the Casey commission?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that unpaid carers are the lifeblood of our care system, and we pay tribute to them for the compassion that they show. I was very pleased yesterday to accompany the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to the launch of the new paid carer’s leave consultation document. I am also pleased to chair the cross-ministerial group that will produce an action plan for unpaid carers, addressing exactly the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned about respite care.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last week the Supreme Court overturned the previous Cheshire West judgment on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, throwing the sector that cares for people with learning disabilities and/or autism into what it has called “chaos”. There is significant concern that, without further clarification as to whether someone who does not have mental capacity can consent to deprivation of liberty, vulnerable people will be put at significant risk. Will the Secretary of State listen to calls for—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have to get through the questions from others, so Members have to help me by asking shorter questions.
James Murray
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government respect the Supreme Court decision. We are considering it carefully, and will set out updated guidance shortly.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Waiting times for cataract operations in my constituency are rising hugely because the local ICB and its AI system have stopped offering services through all the advertised providers, and the ICB has scrapped its contract with Specsavers, meaning that only GPs can diagnose the problem. Will the Minister have a look at the local problem and intervene so that we have the widest and best range of providers to reduce those waiting lists?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that getting the link between high street optometrists and secondary care working more effectively is vital. That is why I was pleased to announce the £20 million e-referral investment earlier this week. We are also working on a single point of access, to get the digital interface working far more effectively. He is right that we should be focusing on that more; there is a lot more to do.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Particularly for people with a very low body mass index or an eating disorder, the use of app-based fitness classes for hours of ultra-high-intensity exercise every day can lead to addiction. When I wrote to one brand to ask about implementing access limitation tools in its app, it was dismissive. Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing whether such tools could be mandated to support those with eating disorders?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue—it is an important angle on a problem of which we are all aware, but in a slightly different context, given some of the modern features that are available on the devices in our pockets. I will look into it further and pick it up with him in due course.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Many Members in this place will be all too familiar with the trauma of a miscarriage; for some, the tragedy occurs more than once. Scotland is the first nation in the UK to implement a miscarriage patient charter, based on the so-called Tommy’s graded model of miscarriage care. Will the new Secretary of State—I welcome him to his place—outline whether the Westminster Government are considering replicating that system in the rest of the UK?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly sensitive and important issue. As a Government, we want to ensure that, through the NHS, we are supporting women who suffer miscarriages and their families. We will make sure that we have the right provision to support them, and that the NHS and wider health system are there for them when they need that help.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley has high levels of deprivation and health inequality. That is why I am campaigning to bring healthcare to Dudley town high street. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can leverage the 10-year plan to reduce health inequalities in Dudley, and does he agree that we need a healthcare hub?
James Murray
I definitely agree that my hon. Friend is a formidable champion for her constituency. She is absolutely right to raise the importance of easily accessible healthcare in places such as high streets. I am keen to ensure that the 250 neighbourhood health centres we have announced—with 120 by 2030—are delivered as quickly as possible. That is part of our plan to ensure that healthcare gets right into every local neighbourhood and community. I look forward to discussing that further with my hon. Friend.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I have a meeting to discuss my parents, carers and babies Bill, which affords support to the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme?
Mrs Hodgson
We know that the earliest stages of a child’s life are critical for their development, and the Government are committed to supporting families to give babies the best start in life. We are investing over £900 million in the Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme to create an integrated, accessible system of support for families. I particularly look forward to considering the merits of the private Member’s Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will present to Parliament, and I do indeed look forward to meeting him to discuss that further.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
There are half a million coeliac sufferers in the UK, but there is little understanding of the condition, which is massively underdiagnosed. Can I invite everyone here—even you, Mr Speaker—to the drop-in session that I am doing on Tuesday 16 June with the campaign? In particular, can the campaign have a follow-up meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), as she has been a long-standing advocate for the campaign and gets it?
James Murray
It is welcome that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has raised this matter in the Chamber, drawing it to the attention of many Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to speak on behalf of my fellow Minister, but I am getting a nod from her—we will be happy to pick this up with my hon. Friend in future.
North Belfast: Violent Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on reports of a serious violent attack in north Belfast involving a foreign national, and the implications for public safety, immigration enforcement and community cohesion.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Shortly after 10.30 pm last night, a man in his 40s was subjected to a horrific, sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast. He is in hospital in a serious condition, having suffered very severe injuries. I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his loved ones at what must be a time of unimaginable distress. The response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland was immediate. A man in his 30s was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. He remains in police custody, and the PSNI is continuing to investigate. It has declared this a critical incident.
Amid the horror of what happened, we also saw something extraordinary. When confronted with scenes of terrifying violence, members of the public did not walk on by. Instead, a number of them stepped forward and, at immense risk to their own safety, intervened to pull the assailant away and protect the victim until the police arrived. To those individuals, I would like to say this: you showed the very best of humanity, and you have the profound gratitude of this entire House.
This was a horrific and brutal attack, and the PSNI is seeking to provide support and reassurance to the local community. The Chief Constable, to whom I have spoken twice this morning, and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their inquiries. I would also like to repeat their appeal not to share or repost footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family.
I echo the words of the Prime Minister this morning that there is no place for such violence on our streets. All of us have a responsibility now to urge calm and let the police do their job.
Gavin Robinson
Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this urgent question? The attempted murder in Belfast last night was chilling. What has been seen by thousands already across the country cannot be unseen. It was medieval—the systematic mutilation and attempted slaughter of a citizen of Belfast on our streets. My prayers are with the victim. I praise the brave man who, with a hurl in his hand, intervened to save his neighbour’s life, and this House should praise him too.
What occurred last night will have profound implications for community cohesion in this country. This needs to be a time for honesty, openness and truth. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his Government recognise that uncontrolled immigration needs to end? Will he confirm that the Government need to reassure and protect our population, who for too long have had their concerns ignored?
Knowing that the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and I share a concern that there could be violence, I express my wish and our collective desire for calm, but community cohesion lies on the precipice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the actions last night in no way reflect or represent the values of our nation, and that the victim belongs in Belfast but the attacker does not? Having abused the privilege of our nation, the perpetrator—living in the UK under a five-year visa—needs to be convicted and deported on the first flight out with a one-way ticket.
Hilary Benn
First, the footage that many people have seen is, indeed, truly horrifying. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as he will be well aware, any foreign national who abuses the hospitality of this country to commit crimes should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We need to allow the criminal justice process to take place. On his question about net migration, as he will know, it is now down 82% from the peak reached under the previous Government.
I would most particularly echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in appealing for calm, because we have seen previously in Belfast in August 2024 and in Ballymena in 2025 what happens after horrific incidents. When there is disorder on the streets, it is the communities that suffer; it is innocent people who suffer and whose lives can be put at risk. That is why all political leaders—all—have such a solemn responsibility to urge the calm that I have called for in my response to his question today.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for asking this urgent question. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have visited Belfast on several occasions, and I have been struck by the incredible community spirit of that incredible city. What we witnessed last night was the worst of humanity but also the best of humanity; it is incredible that bystanders came to the aid of an individual suffering a brutal attack. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the PSNI will be given every resource it needs to conduct a swift investigation and ensure that all facts are shared with the public? Can we also ensure that those brave people who rushed to the aid of one of our own countrymen are given the honour and reward they deserve for representing the best of humanity?
Hilary Benn
I know from the conversations I have had with the Chief Constable this morning that the PSNI is, of course, as the House would expect, treating this with the utmost seriousness and pursuing its inquiries. We need to let the police investigation and, in due course, any criminal justice process take place. I am in favour of as much information being shared as soon as possible, and I can report to the House that the PSNI will be holding a press conference in approximately five and a half minutes’ time to provide more information about the incident. I join my hon. Friend in expressing the hope that the bravery we saw on the streets of north Belfast last night may, in due time, be recognised.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in condemning this dreadful attack. Last night’s attack in north Belfast was horrifying, appalling and deeply disturbing. This was a brutal act of violence that will send shockwaves through the local community and cause huge concern across the city, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victim, whose condition has been described as serious. I also pay tribute to the PSNI and the members of the public who displayed remarkable courage in stepping in to confront the attacker before the police arrived.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland must be given the time and space to carry out a full and thorough investigation, and those responsible must face the full force of the law. However, given the understandable public concern surrounding the incident, it is vital that the facts are established and we have the transparency that people deserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm the immigration status of the attacker? If, as is reported, the attacker is a foreign national, what steps will the Home Office take?
The facts should be put on the public record urgently to avoid speculation and prevent an information vacuum, which the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has warned about. If there have been failings on our borders, this will be yet another reminder that we do need stronger borders, which is why we believe it is time to leave the European convention on human rights. I encourage all who have evidence of the attack to come forward and support the PSNI in its investigation. I join the Secretary of State and all communities in condemning this horrific attack.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone in which he expressed them, because I think it is very important that we act responsibly in these circumstances. I agree, as I have already indicated, that information should be made available to the public. To answer his very specific question, the proper procedure is for the PSNI to be in contact with the Home Office, which I know it has been, in order to establish the facts around the individual. As I say, it is proper that the police provide those, as they are leading the investigation, and I anticipate that more information will be made available shortly by the PSNI. That is the right and proper approach. However, I do not agree with what he said about the European convention on human rights. It is very important. We have it because it protects the liberty of all of us.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The reports from Kinnaird Avenue are deeply distressing. My thoughts are with the victim and his family. I pay tribute to the residents who did the extraordinary thing of running towards danger, intervening to restrain the attacker and helping to protect another person’s life. I also thank the police officers and paramedics who responded with such speed and professionalism. Their actions almost certainly saved a life yesterday evening.
What I know of north Belfast is that it is a community that has worked hard to build trust across long-standing divides, and residents will be as horrified by this attack as the rest of us. Will the Secretary of State reassure residents that they will be kept safe in the days ahead, confirm that the PSNI has the support it needs to maintain a visible presence, and make it clear that no one should exploit one individual’s actions to cast suspicion on a whole community?
Hilary Benn
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his well-chosen and wise words, and for his answers. Tensions are inflamed, and I am aware of protests planned throughout my constituency. I am also aware that many of those who intend to attend do so not because they are frightened for their families alone, but because they feel that their fears are ignored when they make a good and grand statement. How can the Secretary of State and this Government ensure that people from Portavogie to Newtownards know that their right to peacefully protest is respected and, more than that, that their Government—my Government—will make changes for safety reasons as a matter of urgency?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We are all shocked by the sheer savagery of this attack. Indeed, the only bright spot in this orgy of violence was the brave intervention of local citizens, whose courage we salute. What I want to know, and what I know that my constituents want to hear, is what will be done to stop the importation of an alien culture that thinks it is appropriate to try to behead someone within the United Kingdom.
On the immigration status of this person, did they hold a visa before they came to the United Kingdom? Did they obtain a visa having come illegally to the United Kingdom? I think we are entitled to know. This House should be getting its information from the Secretary of State, not from a chief constable’s press conference. The House is entitled to know, because truth and transparency are the greatest antidote to rising tensions, so can we have the answers?
Hilary Benn
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the words “alien culture”; what exactly is he referring to? What the British people have had enough of is anyone, from wherever they come and whatever their background, who seeks to commit violence against citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what we together are strongly opposed to.
There is a proper procedure that needs to be followed in relation to the release of information. It is a live investigation and it is right and proper that the police lead on that, which is why it is the police who have been in touch with the Home Office and will provide further information. As soon as I am able to update the House, I will do so. I am in favour of as much information as possible being provided, once process has been followed to make sure that it can be confirmed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While I agree with virtually everything the Secretary of State said in his opening response, I really am baffled by his refusal to share with the House a piece of simple information. Did this person come legally into this country and have a five-year visa because he came legally, or was he given the visa after entering the country illegally? The information will come out sooner or later, and we have learned from similar terrible incidents that the longer it is withheld, the worse the rumour mill goes into action.
Hilary Benn
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, but it is very important in these circumstances to be absolutely sure about the facts before they are released. The proper vehicle for doing that is the PSNI being in touch with the Home Office, which is what has been happening this morning. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the police originally said they believed the perpetrator to be of one nationality, but it may well turn out that he is in fact of another nationality. That demonstrates the point I am trying to put to the House: it is important that the police lead on that so that the full facts can come out, and then they can be made available to the House and to the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Of course, the Secretary of State will know the answer to this question: did the assailant enter the United Kingdom as an illegal migrant or asylum seeker?
Hilary Benn
Until I am in a position, by talking the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; will he do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer it? Until I am in a position to have that information confirmed, I cannot confirm it to the House. As soon as I can, I will, but, as I have already explained, the PSNI is leading on answering the very legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described the incident as “medieval”. It was not just medieval: what we saw happen on the streets of the United Kingdom was pure evil. While tribute has been paid to those members of the general public who stepped in and the emergency services that responded, may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that those members of the general public who stepped in will be recognised and will not be persecuted or prosecuted for the actions they took in regard to attacking that individual? I encourage the Secretary of State to come forward and fill the vacuum of information, because he knows more than he is telling the House at this minute about this incident.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was an act of pure evil. I am surprised he suggests that there is any possibility that those who came to the aid of the victim should be at risk of prosecution, because they were trying—[Interruption.] Judging by the footage, they were trying to save the victim when the attacker was trying to inflict great harm upon him. My judgment, having looked at that, is that what they did was proportionate and fair, but that is for others to judge. It is important that they are recognised. I have already indicated to the House that as soon as I have information that is confirmed and that I can be sure of, I will inform the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Tens of thousands of people are horrified at the circulation online of the video that the Secretary of State has alluded to. He quite rightly congratulates the members of the public who intervened—whether it was a hurl bat or a cricketing bat, they took action—but as tension rises, we now need to see Government action to restrict and inhibit people arriving in this country illegally, some of whom carry out actions like we saw on the streets of Belfast last night.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are very much with the victim of the horrific attack last night, and I echo the calls for calm in our communities. Communities in Northern Ireland are angry: they are demanding answers and they deserve answers, but sadly I do not feel they are getting those answers today. It is not lost on the people of north Belfast who in this place today is speaking up for working-class communities that are very concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the fact that mayors will not even say how many houses they have full of immigrants.
Was this individual known to the authorities? How many others from the same country are currently being accommodated in Northern Ireland? How did they enter the UK? What actions are this Government taking to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, including via the land border with the Republic of Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member that the public are right to be angry about what they witnessed in that appalling video and what they will have heard about the attack that took place. I will endeavour to come back to her on some of the questions she has asked but, as I have already indicated to the House, other answers will be provided in due course once the facts have been checked. It is really important that the facts are checked before information is given to the House, because I would not want to stand here and say something that turns out not to be the case. Checking the facts thoroughly is a responsibility on me before I inform the House, and that is what I intend to do.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I echo the sentiments of other Members and send my thoughts and prayers to the victim of this horrific attack. May I also extend my gratitude to those in the local community who bravely intervened? We must all encourage calm at this most troubling time and prevent tensions from being further inflamed. To that end, does the Secretary of State agree that we must not let the heinous actions of one person be taken as an opportunity to taint an entire community? We should not and must not attempt to fill the gaps in the story while the police investigation continues to deliver justice to the victim and their family.
Hilary Benn
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think back to those who were attacked in the wake of the terrible events in Southport and in Ballymena. We know that in Northern Ireland certain individuals were attacked who had nothing to do with any of it, simply because of the colour of their skin. That is not what this country is about. We must identify an attacker and follow due process in due course after investigation, but we must not cast aspersions on a whole community. Many people from all backgrounds contribute so much to our national life.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Following on from that question, I also give my deepest sympathies to the victim and his family, and pay tribute to the bystanders who intervened in this horrific case. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as he has already expressed, crime and heroes come in all different hues and colours? We saw that on the train in Cambridgeshire and with the stabber of the Saudi student in the picturesque streets of Cambridge last year. It does not matter which background people come from. It is the responsibility of Members of this House to temper the inflammatory remarks so that we do not see actions like those last week in Southampton, where innocent police officers have had to go into hiding.
Hilary Benn
We all have a responsibility, by our actions and our words, not to inflame and, as I indicated in answering the original question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we all have a responsibility to plead for calm in these circumstances. That is the right thing to do on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Calm is essential after this horrific, brutal attack—we all know that. The Secretary of State has referred to further information coming out as we speak. Will he commit to return to the House, later today if possible, to update us on the important information about the suspect, and any other information?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I will report to the House in an appropriate form as soon as I am able to do so.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I will make a statement on the middle east—first on the Iran conflict and Lebanon, and secondly on the situation in Palestine. May I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to you and to the House for the delay in sending across a copy of the statement?
This weekend, we saw worrying and dangerous escalation, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing to fire into northern Israel, Israeli strikes against southern areas of Beirut, and the direct exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel, presenting one of the most dangerous moments since the fragile ceasefire was agreed. Over the last 48 hours, we have made clear the need for urgent de-escalation, because a resumption of conflict is in no one’s interest. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Sunday evening to convey that point directly.
Both Israel and Iran have indicated that they have ended their strikes, which is welcome, but there was some reporting, just before I entered the Chamber, of strikes again this morning. It is vital that we have a diplomatic way forward to end the conflict in Lebanon, reopen the strait of Hormuz, restore regional stability and prevent Iran from ever developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As we have previously made clear in the House, Israel’s recent escalation in Lebanon was reckless and disproportionate, and it deepened the humanitarian crisis that has already seen more than a million Lebanese people driven from their homes and thousands killed. We strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, including its northern communities. At Iran’s instigation, Hezbollah—a proscribed organisation—is dragging Lebanon into a war that is against the interests of its people and its Government. It must end these dangerous attacks and disarm. The US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon must be properly observed by all parties.
We want to see a swift and successful conclusion to the ongoing talks between the US and Iran. We need an agreement that gets the strait fully open with no tolls or charges. Last week, I discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China and Foreign Minister Jaishankar in India. Every country has a stake in freedom of navigation, and the UK will continue to speak up for that across the world. In partnership with France and other countries, we stand ready to play our part once agreement is reached to support de-mining and provide reassurance to shipping through a multilateral maritime mission. With cost of living pressures at home, we need a lasting settlement that delivers peace and stability in the region and the full restoration of global trade.
Let me turn to Palestine. Nine months ago, at the UN General Assembly, I confirmed the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. We did so, alongside partners, in recognition of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and to defend the viability of the two-state solution. We did so as part of a wave of international diplomatic energy in support of peace in the middle east. It was a crucial moment of hope that we could end the violence and suffering and begin to build a better future of lasting peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the wider region, but today the situation is bleak and the viability of the two-state solution remains in grave peril.
Let me turn to Gaza. The ceasefire remains formally in place, but it is being regularly violated. Since October, more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Some 1.9 million Palestinians remain displaced and dependent on humanitarian aid, and aid is down this year, not up. Some 90% of water and sanitation infrastructure has been destroyed and not rebuilt. There are families without shelter and a public health crisis, with rodent infestations and communicable disease, and we are currently at barely half the level of the 4,200 trucks a week promised in the 20-point plan.
Israel’s registration law continues to severely restrict the operations of international non-governmental organisations, while key crossings remain closed. It is a total moral outrage that children are still going hungry while food that they need rots on shelves because aid agencies cannot get it in. Meanwhile, Hamas decommissioning has not yet started, and they retain a tight hold on areas of Gaza. Instead of the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, Gazans are restricted to just 40% of the territory and are unable to access their land beyond the yellow line.
We urgently need new international energy, new pressure and new action to resuscitate the 20-point plan. For the UK, that means pressure in three priority areas. First, increased aid is urgent and must be unconditional. Despite all the challenges, UK aid is making a difference on the ground. Last year, we provided more than £80 million of humanitarian and early recovery funding, with funding protected again this year, enabling 650,000 people to receive food and improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene for 300,000 people.
UK support for mine clearance has enabled 45 acres of land to be made safe for community use and helped to clear 24 key sites, including medical facilities. Today, I can announce a further £1 million to support mine-clearance efforts, but some UK aid is still stuck in warehouses, including in Jordan and Egypt. Humanitarian support is a fundamental right—it cannot be bartered against other aspects of the peace plan. The Netanyahu Government must recognise their urgent humanitarian responsibility to open crossings and end the arbitrary restrictions so that the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and international non-governmental organisations can fulfil their lifesaving mandates.
Secondly, we continue to press for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons to get under way. Hamas must destroy their terrorist infrastructure and weapons production sites as a first step towards full demilitarisation, and we have offered UK technical expertise to support this. Meanwhile, Israel must deliver on its commitments to withdraw.
Thirdly, we need practical support and the access that was promised for the transitional Palestinian National Committee. There are still too many obstacles in its path, and it is still not operating within Gaza itself, which makes it easier for Hamas to retain their hold. We have offered practical support to the committee as it endeavours to fulfil its mandate, and we will lead international calls to support it in co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority, because Palestine should be run by Palestinians.
That brings me to the west bank. Following the ceasefire agreement, I warned that sustained peace would not be possible without a comparable effort to protect the viability of Palestinian statehood and rights in the west bank. Instead, we have seen the opposite. Last week, a seven-month-old baby—his name was Sam Abu Haikal—was killed in his mother’s arms after the Israel defence forces opened fire on a family car in south Hebron. The UK supports the calls for an immediate and transparent investigation and robust accountability. Over the weekend, a gunman in Israel opened fire, with one killed and five injured—an attack that, shockingly, was applauded by Hamas.
We have also seen rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence, with Palestinian families and communities driven from their homes, brutally beaten while farming their own land. There have already been 950 violent incidents this year; in April, settlers shot dead two Palestinians while attacking a school, one of whom was a boy of 14. The UK condemns this shocking violence that terrorises Palestinians, and many Israelis are horrified by what they are seeing from settler extremists. The Netanyahu Government have condemned some settler violence, but that rings hollow when there is scant accountability and when the agenda of the hard-line settlers has now become intertwined with the approach of this Israeli Cabinet.
As such, let me set out what new action this Government will take. First, I am announcing a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence—organisations including the Farms Association, which fundraises for illegal outposts that act as strongholds for settler aggression; Ahavat Gilad, which serves as the Farms Association’s financial conduit; and Artzenu, which has fundraised for military equipment for armed settler squads. This is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Labour Government. We have targeted some of the most notorious individuals, the most significant settler entities, and the extremist figures in the Israeli Cabinet who are inciting these acts. Today’s measures mean that the UK is second to none among international partners in targeting those who are facilitating and inciting settler violence.
We are also going further. On 22 May, the Prime Minister led a group of other world leaders in warning businesses not to bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. However, this is not just about construction contracts, so today, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous that British citizens and businesses should not conduct any economic or financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, I have also written today to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, requesting that it open an investigation into evidence of UK charities having links to illegal settlements. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), will meet the commission’s chief executive officer tomorrow, because no UK charity should be supporting or enabling these breaches of international law.
The principles we are acting on are, I believe, widely supported across this House. We believe that settlements are a fundamental barrier to peace and a flagrant breach of international law, and that violent settler groups should not be profiting from the land they have seized from Palestinians. We also believe that we must continue to distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel, trade that reflects long-standing and important ties between our countries and communities. We will continue to co-ordinate our approach with close allies and look at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security.
Finally, let me address our support for Palestinian governance. We are keeping up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to deliver their vital reform commitments on education, welfare payments and elections. We are expanding direct practical help to the PA to reform and deliver effective government for their people, drawing on the deep expertise of the UK envoy for PA governance, Lord Michael Barber.
However, the PA face an enormous fiscal and healthcare crisis because the Israeli Government have a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, including by withholding $5 billion of Palestinian tax revenue. That means that schools and health facilities struggle to stay open for more than one or two days a week. An effective PA is directly in Israel’s interest, so it is both utterly wrong and incredibly short-sighted for the Netanyahu Government to seek to undermine them at every turn. The UK has stepped up our efforts in support, alongside our support for reforms. This year, we provided the PA with funding that helped 5,300 health workers to sustain frontline services. Today, I can announce that we will provide at least £10 million further to support the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries over 2026, bolstering their ability to function and helping dedicated health professionals to do their essential work across hospitals, clinics and maternity services. Our focus will be to build more effective, more democratic and more accountable governance, and to reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine.
International pressure and partnership on the ground have been vital over the past 12 months, so later this week, I will travel to Paris along with other Foreign Ministers in advance of the peacebuilding conference. That conference will bring together Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups alongside international partners dedicated to advancing the two-state solution, because the momentum of last year must be reinvigorated for the sake of peace and security for all.
I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.
No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?
It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?
As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that
“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]
He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?
More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?
The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?
Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she
“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”
Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?
There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?
Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.
Yvette Cooper
Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.
The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.
It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I share the Government’s condemnation of the illegal settlements that are systematically destroying any prospect of a Palestinian state. Of course, settlements do not build themselves; they require money, insurance and trade, and I therefore welcome the changed guidance to British citizens that they should not conduct any economic or financial activity in the settlements, but the question really is, “What happens if they do?” Currently, the truth is that British companies are bankrolling annexations one settlement at a time. If the Government can recognise that settlements are illegal, why do they not just issue a ban on all trade in goods and services with the settlements, rather than more guidance? Are we in danger of doing too little, too late?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear about the fact that settlements are illegal and are undermining peace. We do not want trade with illegal settlements, and we want to deter support for those settlements. Such support includes financial engagement, and it also includes the charitable organisations that should not be engaging either. That is why we have set out new sanctions today, and stronger business advice. Of course we distinguish between illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel, and we will also continue to work with allies across the world on this. I recognise the points that my right hon. Friend has made, and I know that countries that have looked at this have also found it hard to deal with some of these further issues in practice, but we will continue to work with allies to establish what practical arrangements can ensure that we stand up for international law and against the illegal settlements that are endangering peace.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
The steps announced by the Government today are important and right. British businesses and charities have to know that engaging with or sustaining settlements in the west bank is illegal and unacceptable. The updated business risk guidance is therefore correct, but it is overdue—the Dutch Government issued a similar discouragement notice in 2006, 20 years ago—and also insufficient. The Government should have used this moment to announce specific sanctions on British firms that enable or finance the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Will they move to review sanctions much more regularly and bring new packages to the House every month, and will the Foreign Secretary finally heed Liberal Democrat calls to ban all trade in goods and services with the illegal settlements?
Last September, the Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was the right thing to do, and a step that Liberal Democrats have been advocating for almost a decade. However, the Israeli Security Cabinet is moving fast to expand legal rights for land purchases in the west bank, while settler violence towards Palestinians continues. The UK’s complicity in enabling the growth of illegal settlements runs deep. On Sunday, the Great Israeli Real Estate Event is coming to London. Properties in illegal settlements in Gush Etzion are being marketed alongside properties in Israeli cities. This is Palestinian land being advertised, bartered and sold on the streets of our capital. Will the Government intervene to ban the event unless assurances can be given that no properties in illegal settlements will be advertised?
Let me return to the subject of the wider region. Hezbollah has continued to strike northern Israel, but the latest exchange of fire between Israel and Iran following Israeli strikes on Beirut shows just how precarious the regional ceasefire is. Talks on moving towards a peace settlement cannot be derailed. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that actions by the Israel Defence Forces in Lebanon, directed by Netanyahu, are materially undermining the chances of reaching a wider peace settlement? What actions are the Government taking to address that?
Liberal Democrats have long called for the proscription in the UK of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Government have now committed themselves to legislating during the current Session, so will they engage with Members on both sides of the House to see whether this legislation can be put forward immediately and fast-tracked into law?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, including his comments on the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. We should always be clear about the fact that there is no alternative to a two-state solution if any peace and security are to be established in the region, which is why it is crucial that we work to maintain the prospects of such a solution now.
The hon. Member referred to the sanctions regimes. We are not just looking to continue to increase the number of targeted sanctions, but looking at potential ways in which to strengthen the overall sanctions regime. We have been one of the leading countries in the world in respect of sanctions relating to the illegal settlements. As the hon. Member will know, we are one of the few countries that have sanctioned individual Israeli Cabinet Ministers who have been inciting the extremist behaviour and supporting the settlements. In recent weeks we have also seen the most shameful behaviour on the part of one of those Cabinet Ministers, involving the Gaza flotilla and the treatment of people there.
The hon. Member raised the wider issue of going further in respect of the trade issues. Let me repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry): we have made it very clear that we do not believe there should be trade with the illegal settlements. We have given clear and extremely strong advice, and we will continue to work with allies across the world on the most effective way to maintain this. It is also important that we differentiate between trade with illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel.
As for the threats from Hezbollah, it has been devastating for the people of Lebanon to see Hezbollah, as an Iran-backed proxy, hijack their chances of peace. However, we—including my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, who has raised the matter in the House as well—have also expressed our deep concern about the Israeli escalation in Lebanon, and the dangerous impact of that on the Lebanese people. We want the settlement between the US and Iran to be swiftly reached, and no one should be undermining or destabilising the prospects for that settlement.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned state threats in the UK. I can tell him that we are moving at a rapid pace to address that. As he will know, this is something about which I personally feel very strongly, having commissioned last year the advice from Jonathan Hall which led to the recommendation that we need new legislation to protect us against state threats. We will be introducing that legislation swiftly, and will be seeking to work with other parties to try to get it through Parliament as rapidly as possible.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last week, tenders for the expansion of the unlawful E1 settlements were launched, involving nearly 3,500 housing units, directly flouting international law and also putting the viability of a Palestinian state at risk. Moreover, as we have heard, on the 14th of this month there will be a real estate deal in London, which is about marketing the purchase of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank, including the Gush Etzion settlement—again, flouting international law, in this city. I welcome this morning’s updated and strengthened guidance warning businesses not to engage, and I welcome the additional sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, but we know that at least 43 businesses have been previously engaged in the expansion of settlements. What will be the consequences if they decide to ignore the guidance, and go ahead with becoming involved in these illegal expansions?
Yvette Cooper
I would warn any businesses against associating themselves with potential breaches of international law, and also against becoming involved in a process that is undermining peace and security for the region. As for the operations in London, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), we will pursue any issues that we can raise relating to anything that might be in breach of the law. However, I think that organisations, including businesses—and particularly charities, in respect of which we have additional enforcement powers—have a moral responsibility not to support the illegal settlements that are not only in breach of international law but are undermining regional security and peace.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I agreed with the Government’s decision, which I supported from day one, to stay out of this totally counterproductive war. I hope that we have all learnt our lesson and that we are never going to listen to liberal imperialists or neocons, with their endless wars over regime change in the middle east, all of which have been a disaster—Syria, Libya, Iraq and now Iran.
What influence do we have on the Trump Administration? They are the only people who Netanyahu cares about. I can see the wonderful Justice Secretary, a chum of the Vice President, sitting next to the Foreign Secretary. Is there any way the Foreign Secretary can convince the Trump Administration in her conversations with Secretary of State Rubio that, although we are not naive about Hezbollah and Hamas—we know they are horrible organisations—we could at least start to detach the Palestinian people from these organisations if the Trump Administration were absolutely firm that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the west bank must stop now? We have to stop the total destruction of Gaza and the appalling suffering. We have read this very day about people in Gaza getting cancer and dying in agony. What influence do we actually have on the Trump Administration?
Yvette Cooper
The Father of the House is right. We took a different view to that of the US and Israel at the start of this conflict, and we did not get drawn into offensive operations against Iran. We did take defensive action to support Gulf partners when they were under attack from Iran, but we took a different view at the start of this conflict, and I believe that was the right thing for the UK to do and was in the UK’s interest.
The US remains a close security partner and ally, and I have many conversations with Secretary of State Marco Rubio about a whole range of different issues, not just in the middle east but across the world. We were involved in many discussions with the US in the run-up to the adoption of the 20-point plan and the Gaza peace process last autumn, and it was US leadership that got the final agreement to the 20-point plan. However, the plan is at risk of falling apart right now, which is why we are engaging with not just the US but partners across the world. We will be having the peacebuilding conference in Paris on Friday, because we need to restore the energy and commitment to the 20-point plan, which is being flouted repeatedly and dangerously across Gaza every single day. We urgently need humanitarian aid and support for families in Gaza, but we also need the restoration of energy behind the 20-point plan.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has announced today, but I want to come back to her strong advice to businesses that we should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, rather than having an outright ban. We know a ban is possible, because we did it for illegally occupied territories in Ukraine, and we know it is the right thing to do, because when it comes to trading in ivory, firearms or narcotics, we ban it outright. We know that anything less than a total ban risks the UK aiding Israel’s repeated violations of international law. Is it not time to move beyond strong guidance and advice by taking meaningful, proportionate action and having an outright ban?
Yvette Cooper
We share the view that the settlements are illegal and undermine peace. We want to prevent trade with illegal settlements and discourage anyone, including UK businesses as well as those from around the world, from supporting those settlements. That is why we are using our sanctions regime to target some of the issues around the settlements, and why we are looking at other ways of strengthening our sanctions regime. We will continue to work with allies across the world on this matter. Other countries have also looked at these issues and what more can be done, and have found that some of the practicalities are complex in this area, but we will continue to work with allies.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
President Trump spoke to the BBC yesterday and said that his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu was such that:
“If I tell him to do something, he does it.”
It is all very well for the British Government to make contingency plans, such as with the multinational planning conference at Permanent Joint Headquarters Northwood at the end of April, but that will be a mere displacement activity if there is no peace deal. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to encourage Washington to demand restraint from Tel Aviv in Lebanon, to help bring about a peace deal and an end to the blockade of the strait of Hormuz?
Yvette Cooper
We have continual discussions with the US Secretary of State, and we have continual engagement with the US Administration on the support for reaching a peace settlement. That includes the full and unconditional reopening of the strait of Hormuz and, of course, preventing Iran from getting a settlement. We have also discussed with the US the importance of the ceasefire in Lebanon, and of not allowing what is happening in Lebanon to destabilise the wider peace agreement. I have had those discussions with the US Administration, and it is notable that the US brokered the ceasefire in Lebanon. That continues to be violated, but it is essential that the ceasefire is respected and holds in order to make it possible to get the wider settlement in place.
The multinational maritime mission is explicitly designed to help restore global shipping as rapidly as possible; it is not a substitute for a peace settlement. We need to get the settlement in place and commitments to the reopening of the strait, but then we need practical measures, including reassurance on shipping and de-mining, to make sure that it opens.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Israeli Ministers have reconfirmed what we have all known: it is their intention to settle Jewish settlers in southern Lebanon, as they have done in the west bank and are doing in Gaza. The E1 project will bury the idea of a Palestinian state forever. This is something that many of us have known for a long time, and we are seeing—in real time—ethnic cleansing and war crimes being committed as part of the greater Israel project.
This Sunday, there will be a real estate event on UK soil that will openly sell land in the illegal west bank settlement. It is really sad that the shadow Foreign Secretary talked a lot about Iran but did not have a word of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Can we please put an outright ban on trade with settlements, stop selling arms to Israel and strengthen the International Court of Justice? Its judges are routinely being threatened by the US Administration.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that the Justice Secretary brought in new restrictions on arms sales to Israel because of our concerns about ensuring that we always stand up for international law. We have been one of the world’s leading countries in introducing sanctions, including on individual Israeli Government Ministers. She refers to some of the concerns about expanding illegal settlements, and I agree with her about the dangers of the E1 project, which is clearly illegal and damaging to peace.
I am also troubled by some of the comments that we have heard, including from Prime Minister Netanyahu, about Israel trying to take over 70% of Gaza and having a permanent divide there. That would fundamentally flout and overturn the 20-point plan that Israel signed up to, alongside Hamas and countries across the world. It is vital that the Israelis respect the 20-point plan and withdraw from Gaza as part of the agreement. That is why we want to restore the international effort and energy to implement the 20-point plan.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Those clinging to life in Gaza and scratching an existence in the west bank merely occupy different circles within the depths of the inferno. Any relief is dependent on the policy of Israel, and that in turn would require pressure from its principal ally, the United States of America. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of any prospect of that?
Yvette Cooper
We need Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza. It is just horrifying that families are going without the food and medical support that they desperately need. I have discussed this many times, including with the US Administration and of course directly with Israel. Immediately after the 20-point plan, there was an increase in aid as a result of the international commitment, but since the start of this year that has plummeted again. That is why I believe we need the international energy restored behind the 20-point plan and the commitments made as part of it to get aid back in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I want to thank the Minister for the middle east for agreeing with me last week when I referred to the forced displacement of people by Israel as a war crime, and I am grateful for that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her sterling work in raising the issue of charities, which was reflected in the statement.
I want to press the Foreign Secretary when she says that
“businesses should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements.”
There must be consequences for that. Those activities are criminal, and we have the architecture in this country with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are giving guidance to their members? Importantly, what conversations is she having with the National Crime Agency, because until such time as those companies are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes, I am afraid this is not going to bite?
Yvette Cooper
We have clearly set out the strengthened business advice, but we are also strengthening our sanctions regime to directly target organisations, including international organisations, deliberately facilitating and funnelling resources to illegal settlements where we have seen really disturbing settler violence. We are looking at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, and we will go further in setting out new sanctions and pursuing sanctions enforcement.
We will also continue to work with allies across the world, because this is an issue that no one country can tackle alone. We have been leading on action across the world, but given that this trade is very often international in scale, the more that we can build international consensus around this, the more impact we can have.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I do not seek to offend the Foreign Secretary, but how can we lecture businesses in the United Kingdom about morality when we are witnessing a genocide? Even if they are considering only the risk of a genocide, the Government should take steps to prevent that, such as cutting off all trade, and we still supply components to the F-35 programme. We recently witnessed five British citizens being tortured, sexually assaulted and dumped in Greece. A seven-month-old child was murdered in the hands of his mother, and no doubt an investigation will conclude that that child was a shield. Why does she not sanction the leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what will the Government do to prevent this show business sale, in London on Sunday, of illegal properties there?
Yvette Cooper
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), we will pursue any angle we can against operations taking place here in the UK. It is important to be clear that we have very much led the way with the sanctions that we have imposed. Most countries obviously do not sanction individual members of the Israeli Government, but we have done so because we were so appalled by the incitement by those individuals.
As the hon. Member will know, one of those Ministers was involved in the shocking flaunting and just the most disgraceful promoting of what were really disturbing ways of treating human beings on the flotilla that did not meet the basic standards of humanity. He also referred, as I described in my statement, to the really distressing case of a baby just seven months old being killed. That is why we will continue to pursue sanctions, and we will continue to pursue other options with allies across the world.
The other thing we need to do is build the same sense of international consensus that we had in the autumn on the 20-point plan for Gaza. There was only partial consensus on the west bank at that time. We and other countries recognised the state of Palestine as part of that, so there was that strong commitment, and the 20-point plan refers to the transition to the Palestinian Authority and links with the future state of Palestine. However, we need to strengthen the international consensus built in the autumn to cover a much wider area—not just Gaza, but also the west bank—with a broader regional security framework. We have seen the power we have when we get international consensus together, but individual countries acting alone do not have such an impact.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the dedication and commitment of the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east in trying to advance this issue in line with the will of this House. Only too sadly, it is no surprise to many of us that, while the eyes of the world have been largely focused on Iran, we have seen the abuses continue and get worse in Gaza and the west bank. That is a deliberate strategy of the Israeli Government. We often talk about settler violence, but this is state-supported settler violence, not the acts of individuals alone. So I welcome the advanced package put forward today, including in relation to the Charity Commission, but also in moving our sanctions from individuals to groups.
This is not just about aid going in, but about justice for Palestinians and for the west bank and about building a wider peace. What judgment will the Foreign Secretary make about whether the sanctions go far enough, and when will she come back to the House and tell us whether we will go further? Does she agree with me that this is a cause for justice, and one whose time needs to be taken more seriously?
Yvette Cooper
I do agree with my hon. Friend. What is going on is being talked about as, in effect, annexation of parts of the west bank. It is not simply about a small rogue group going against the intentions of the Israeli Government. The E1 settlement has been authorised and promoted by the Israeli Government, yet it is illegal. It goes against any prospects for peace and security in the region. Frankly, it is ultimately damaging for the security of Israel as well as for peace, security and justice for the people of Palestine. That is why we will continue to pursue this issue.
However, I think we have to combine two things: what we can do with our own sanctions regime, working with our closest allies on such measures and on applying pressure; and promoting the wider international consensus and energy that we briefly had in the autumn—it had built up over many months—and that we must rebuild now.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that repeatedly saying that a terrorist group must do something does not make it happen? When she says that Hezbollah
“must end these dangerous attacks and disarm”,
does she expect this to happen voluntarily, and if not, how does she expect it to be brought about?
Yvette Cooper
Hezbollah is a dangerous terrorist organisation. It is undermining the security of the people of Lebanon. We support the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces in taking action against Hezbollah. We are providing them with direct support, including funding and capabilities support, because we believe it is hugely important that they should be able to do this with international support. We also think, frankly, that Iran should be putting pressure on its proxies, rather than using proxies to escalate tensions and to escalate activity, so we are putting pressure on Iran to put pressure on Hezbollah.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Frankly, the measures announced today, while necessary, do not go anywhere near far enough. They will not stop the genocide in Gaza, they will not stop the war crimes in Gaza, and they certainly will not stop the continuation of illegal settlements. What real, concrete measures can the Foreign Secretary announce here today? She stated earlier, to a number of colleagues who asked the question, that she wants to see an end to trade with illegal settlements. Well, that is in her gift, because she can stand at the Dispatch Box today and announce a ban on trade with all illegal settlements. Why will she not do that?
Yvette Cooper
We are announcing these sanctions, which go further than ever before in targeting the organisations that are effectively facilitating, promoting, encouraging and developing illegal settlements. We want to continue to go further on sanctions and look at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, so that we can go further and can put on additional pressure. Look, individual countries can take particular action on things such as sanctions in different ways—the trade issues we have discussed and so on—but the biggest impact will be made by building an international coalition and consensus. That is what happened in autumn around Gaza. That has been lost or reduced since then. We must rebuild that again, but this time we must ensure it includes the west bank as well as Gaza.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I was recently on a cross-party visit to Israel and Palestine. We met the Norwegian Refugee Council and talked about the issue of dual use items, where the Israeli Government do not let certain items into Gaza because they argue they can be used for terrorist purposes. That includes situations where young children are able to leave Gaza to get hearing implants in countries such as Jordan, but are then not allowed back into Gaza because the component parts are considered to be dual use items. What pressure can the Government bring to bear on the Israeli Government to prevent the weaponisation of this issue against the Gazan people?
Yvette Cooper
We have raised exactly this issue many times directly with the Israeli Government, the Civil-Military Coordination Center and the US Administration, because the hon. Lady is completely right: we are ending up with basic medical equipment being turned down because somehow it could be treated as dual use, or tent poles for basic shelter being turned down because somehow they could be dual use. That is deeply damaging and they are different standards to the ones that applied even 12 months ago. Even when there were previous ceasefires, we managed to get a lot more aid and support through. That is why it is crucial that aid is not weaponised. It is a basic human right and we will continue to argue strongly for an increase in humanitarian aid.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the new package of important sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary. As I raised with Government Ministers last week, and as I discussed with the Foreign Secretary last night, last week I submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about 32 UK charities that have over the past five years funnelled some £28 million to illegal Israeli settlements. The research into that was conducted jointly with Israeli human rights organisations. They include UK Toremet, which currently has a live donation page to Artzenu, which the Foreign Secretary has just announced sanctions against. I welcome the fact that she has raised this issue with the Charity Commission. I would say that it was made aware of these issues in July 2025 but has done nothing so far. Can she be clear that we are not just looking for an investigation, but a ban? In reference to the letter that I and 140 other Labour colleagues sent her this week, on a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, can she also now say that we will look to move towards a ban, on top of the guidance that she has issued?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done on how charity systems are abused to funnel support to illegal settlements. She has rightly raised that issue not just with me but with the Culture Secretary and directly with the Charity Commission. The Minister for the Middle East will be meeting the CEO of the Charity Commission tomorrow to pursue exactly this issue to ensure there is a thorough investigation. Some evidence suggests that rules are being broken. We should not end up with UK gift aid being funnelled to illegal settlements. That clearly breaches all the standards that anybody across the UK would expect there to be, as well as the Charity Commission rules, which is why it is essential to look at this. On the wider issues around trade, we do not want trade with illegal settlements. That is why we will continue to look at strengthening the sanctions regime and work with allies across the world.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We welcome the new sanctions, but the issue of illegality goes much deeper than these now-sanctioned organisations. The illegal settlements in the west bank are state sponsored, state financed and state protected. That is also the case for the settler violence that inevitably follows, which is carried out with almost complete impunity. Why have the Government chosen to sanction these particular organisations, but decided not to take further action against the Netanyahu regime in the face of its state-sponsored illegal settlement policy?
Yvette Cooper
As I set out earlier, the UK has introduced sanctions against individual members of the Netanyahu Government, something that very few countries across the world have actually done. We believe that is the right thing to do because of the seriousness of what they have done and the seriousness of the situation around illegal settlements. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is about international law more widely, but also, specifically, the peace and security of the middle east. We know that there is no alternative to the two-state solution, but ultimately, to make progress on Gaza, as we did for a brief period in autumn, we need to build up international consensus and not just look for what individual countries should do.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Let us just imagine that, this weekend in our capital city, there was a “great Russian real estate event” selling off Ukrainian land. Quite rightly and without hesitation, the Government would move to ban such an illegal event. This weekend in London, there is the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, openly advertising the illegal sale of land in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. Given that the Government rightly recognised the state of Palestine, surely we should now move to ban this event, which is selling off land illegally in Palestine.
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that particular event. If we find any cases where there are breaches of UK law, we will also pursue them. The wider issue is that nobody in the UK should be advertising illegal settlements. Nobody should be pursuing illegal settlements. No businesses or organisations should be getting involved in them. We have shown our willingness and determination to impose sanctions on organisations that do, just as we have set out today. We will continue to do further sanctions where we have the opportunity to do so, because support for illegal settlements is wrong.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the most depressing things about these statements is the profound damage that they do to British national interests and our standing in the world through their pathetic delusion. On Gaza, could the Foreign Secretary confirm that she is aware that in the last two weeks Israeli Ministers have made clear their desire for the mass emigration of Palestinians from the territory, and that we should see the stranglehold they have imposed in that context?
Could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that the meagre sanctions that the previous and current Government have imposed so far have had absolutely no impact on the conduct of anybody in Israel, let alone the Israeli Government, and that the current wave of what she is calling sanctions are not actually sanctions but asset freezes? That means that unless the organisations or individuals targeted have assets in the UK, the measures will have no impact. In fact, the regime that she has chosen to bring them in under does not even include goods and services, so as we are all still free to sell those organisations or individuals bricks and mortar, corrugated iron or insurance, the measures are unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on what is going on in the west bank.
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear that having an impact on what happens in Gaza and the west bank depends on building international consensus and taking multiple actions. The right hon. Member complains about what this Government have done, but he should consider for a second the things that we have done that his Government refused to do. We have restored and increased funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, suspended arms licences for use in Gaza, dropped the challenge to the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and introduced four packages of sanctions on violent settlers, including sanctioning Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir—leading the first group of countries to do so.
This Government have led diplomatic efforts at the UN, launched a medevac scheme for sick Gazan children and their families—helping to get students into the UK—and supported UK field hospitals in Gaza, treating hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We are funding mine-clearance operations and providing more than £129 million in humanitarian assistance this year—and then protecting that in each year of the spending review. Most importantly, we took the historic decision, which his Government refused to take for years, to recognise the state of Palestine as part of the inviolable right of the Palestinian people. That was the right thing to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We know that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, and 21,000 have lifechanging injuries. We made a commitment that will bring around 300 children to the UK to have urgent surgery to aid them. Last week, I met two of those children. They had two specific pleas. First, we should expand the scheme and bring over the 4,000 children who are waiting and need our medical care. Secondly, children can bring only one parent; they want both their parents to be with them. Having their family around them will help with their healing. Can we ensure that their families can come too, so that those children are safe, mentally as well as physically, as they get the support they need?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her representations around the medevac scheme, which I strongly support. I know of and have looked at cases where children have been able to bring more family members than that. If she has individual cases, then she should raise them, but I know there are many cases where children have come with both parents from Gaza. We will make further announcements in due course around the medevac scheme. There are also many children who may not have the most life-threatening conditions but who still desperately need medical treatment and support that they are not getting in Gaza. One of the greatest priorities is to rebuild healthcare facilities in Gaza and to treat as many children as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
At the moment, the Palestinian people are allowed to occupy only 40% of the Gaza strip, and that figure will go down to 30% next month if Netanyahu has his way. Israel is bombarding—through settlers and its own violence—the people of the west bank, and it is also now occupying a large part of southern Lebanon. The House needs to know exactly what the nature of the security relationship is between Britain and Israel. What information is shared, what weapons are supplied, and why are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets knowing full well that those planes are used in acts of genocide against the Palestinian people?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that after the election we introduced new and strong arms export controls to cover anything that could be used in operations in Gaza, including anything that might breach international law. We have been clear about that.
The right hon. Member raises the issue of the yellow line in Gaza, which I am deeply troubled about. We have heard Prime Minister Netanyahu talking about trying to seek 70% control of Gaza, when the 20-point plan involved full withdrawal. I am worried that there are attempts under way to make that yellow line permanent, and to condense the land available for the Palestinian people in Gaza into an ever-smaller area. That fundamentally goes against the agreements in the 20-point plan, which were endorsed by Hamas, Israel and countries across the world. That 20-point plan needs to be upheld, and it includes the withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza as part of its implementation.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement confirming that she has strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clearer and unambiguous. To labour the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), however, we know that settlements are illegal, so why are the Government only publishing guidance to businesses? We do not simply issue guidance to stop businesses trading in ivory, illegal firearms or narcotics—we ban them, as we have banned businesses from trading with illegally occupied Crimea. The Foreign Secretary stated that it was complex, but why is guidance enough when it comes to illegally occupied Palestinian land, but not illegally occupied Ukrainian land? Will she please be clear and unambiguous in her response?
Yvette Cooper
The Government are clear that part of what we are doing with this package of additional sanctions is targeting businesses and organisations that are facilitating the operations in the illegal settlements. We believe that the sanctions regime needs to be strengthened to allow us to go further in different areas, and we need to work with other countries on that. It is obviously important to distinguish between what is happening in the illegal settlements, and trade right across Israel; the specific issue we are targeting is about settlement goods and the illegal Israeli settlements. Other countries have been looking at that and have found some of the practicalities challenging. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made, and the concerns raised around this issue. We continue to look at what more can be done, and to work with international partners.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain the “multi” bit of the multinational maritime mission, because so far all I see are contributions from France and the UK? In particular, she said that she had spoken to her interlocutors last week in China and India. One is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the other is a member of the G20, and both of them stand to suffer far more than the UK and France do from a cessation of trade in oil, gas and fertiliser. What assets will China and India be providing to this multinational maritime mission?
Yvette Cooper
China and India are not part of the multinational maritime mission. We have been doing two things to maintain the principle of freedom of navigation. With France, we have been developing the multilateral mission. There are other countries ready to provide assets, some of which have been set out and some of which will be announced in due course as they are needed. We have also convened countries—including the 40 that I convened before Easter—to raise the consensus around and continue to defend the principle of freedom of navigation. The Chinese ambassador also attended a similar event in Paris, chaired by President Macron and the Prime Minister, so we are engaging with those countries on the principle of freedom of navigation, but the maritime mission is a much narrower group of countries, predominantly—but not entirely—European.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Once again, British citizens taking part in the Global Sumud Flotilla—a peaceful aid mission to break the illegal blockade of Gaza—have been severely mistreated by the Israeli Government. This is beyond dispute, with video evidence of a far-right Israeli Minister mocking activists while they are bound and on their knees, as the Foreign Secretary referred to earlier. The Italian Government have opened an investigation into the incident and the EU is expected to vote on sanctions next Monday; I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that British nationals deserve the same protections and robust response. Will she therefore confirm her earlier response that the offending Minister remains under sanctions, and will she set out what further actions will be taken specifically to stand up for those British citizens?
Yvette Cooper
Like my hon. Friend, I was appalled to see how people were being treated in that video. It did not meet the most basic standards of humanity and respect for other human beings. It is particularly shocking that not only was that mistreatment happening, but it was being promoted and flaunted by an Israeli Government Minister. I can confirm that the Minister, Ben-Gvir, is sanctioned by the UK Government; we were one of the first countries to sanction him, and we will continue to do so. The behaviour shown in that video evidence, as well as other things that he has said and done, provides clear justification as to why we are right to do so.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench, most right hon. and hon. Members condemn the appalling and murderous actions of his far-right regime. However, the Foreign Secretary surely recognises that Netanyahu is laughing behind his hands as Israel easily bypasses the flimsy trade and arms sanctions that the UK Government have introduced. She talks about building an international consensus, but is it not time to take stronger action and, in building that consensus, to propose the introduction of international peacekeepers into Gaza to ensure the peace, stop the bloodshed and get the humanitarian aid in?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will know that the 20-point plan included the development of an international stabilisation force that was effectively about bringing peacekeepers into Gaza. That has not yet happened, partly because there simply has not been enough progress in certain areas, as well as in respect of the humanitarian aid, which is just basic.
We have promoted the argument that the decommissioning of Hamas’s weapons needs to reflect the experience in Northern Ireland. Some of the processes are not simple, but we need to get them started—it is essential to get that started. We also need a practical approach to allowing the Palestinian committee to start to operate in Gaza, and to providing the support and training for Palestinian police to be able to operate in Gaza. We have to get those security conditions right so that we can bring in the ISF where other countries have said they would be willing to do so, but getting to that point requires more commitment and energy, particularly from the Israeli Government, but also more broadly, as part of the 20-point plan, so that we can reach the point the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the fourth package of sanctions against the groups supporting the extremist Israeli settlers. I also welcome the strengthened guidance that no UK businesses should have any financial or economic links with illegal settlements—although many of my constituents would prefer to see an outright ban, because they are seeing the continued expansion of illegal settlements. Just last week, Minister Smotrich announced more than 2,000 new homes in and around Jerusalem, Nablus and Hebron. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute violation of international law and that it does nothing to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The expansion of the illegal settlements is not only deeply wrong, because Palestinians are being forced from their own land, sometimes in the most brutal of circumstances, but deliberately designed to try to make it impossible to ever get to a two-state solution. That is the purpose for some of those involved, and we should be very clear on that and call it out for what it is. That is why it is so important not only to strengthen the condemnation of the illegal settlements and the expansions, but to be clear that we cannot stand back and allow what could effectively become an annexation. That needs to be linked to the 20-point plan. My point has always been that we will not sustain the ceasefire in Gaza that was rightly brokered by the US in the autumn, or achieve peace and security for Palestine and Israel, if we end up with such devastating consequences for the west bank and if we do not have a track to get to a two-state solution.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the face of consistent, sustained and systematic war crimes, violations and abuses by the Israeli Government, the Secretary of State has today announced further piecemeal sanctions and guidance, which go nowhere near acknowledging the reality that the most important sponsor, financer, protector, supporter and cheerleader of that illegal settlement expansion is the Israeli state itself. Sanctioning a few organisations ignores the reality of where the power lies in this situation. Is it not long past time for this Government, who say they are concerned about this issue, to use all their limited power, influence and leverage to take action against the Israeli state itself, starting with Netanyahu, with genuine, full and comprehensive sanctions and a full ban on any engagement with settlements?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because we are so deeply concerned about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the responsibility of the Israeli Government to uphold the 20-point plan, which is not happening at the moment in Gaza, to withdraw from the illegal settlements in the west bank and to lift their chokehold on the Palestinian Authority that we have taken action, including sanctions and leading the way internationally. We are one of the few countries in the world to have sanctioned individual Israeli Government Ministers, including for the way they have argued for incitement and effectively encouraged the expansion of the settlements.
We are going right to the heart of the Israeli Government with the actions we have taken, alongside other measures, including financial and development support for the Palestinian Authority and recognition of the Palestinian state for the first time, which was historically the right thing to do. If we are to deliver results, the other thing we need to do is build international consensus. That international leadership and action is what delivered the 20-point plan in the autumn, and that is what we will do again as part of the peacebuilding conference in Paris this week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have noticed that this statement has been going on for quite some time. I ask Members to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep her answers shorter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Earlier this month, an Israeli soldier shot dead a seven-month-old baby, Sam Fahd Abu Haikal, and wounded his parents in the occupied west bank. UNICEF reports that, far from being an accident, violence against Palestinian children has reached levels not seen in decades. Given the difficulty that even the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has in restraining Netanyahu’s actions across the middle east, when will the Government bring in stronger measures, including sanctions, and do more to ensure that those committing war crimes face accountability under international law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend rightly raised the deeply distressing case I mentioned in the statement of a seven-month-old baby killed in his mother’s arms. He was also right to highlight the number of Palestinian children who have lost their lives. The problem is that even where there has been either investigation or condemnation by the Israeli Government, there is often impunity and a complete lack of accountability. It is vital that where there are such cases and issues, there is proper investigation and accountability.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As I mentioned to the Minister for the Middle East last week, not all of the Shi’a community in Lebanon support Hezbollah or Iran, and the majority do not support violence; they want to live in peace like all of us, whatever country we are in.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the Amal movement is a Shi’a political movement. While it is not a benign movement, it is probably a better interlocutor than Hezbollah to work with in rebuilding the whole nation of Lebanon—subject to conditions—which will of course include the important Shi’ite community. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity building of political parties and movements that want to move away from armed violence and struggle?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is right that we need an inclusive process in Lebanon that brings all groups and communities together but excludes Hezbollah, Iranian-backed proxies and terrorist and extremist groups. The group that he mentioned is led by Speaker Berri, who met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East as part of his recent visit. We will continue to engage with that movement and more widely with the Lebanese Government about the importance of bringing all communities together so that the Lebanese people are not exploited by Iran.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A prohibition must be brought in to finally deal with British firms such as JCB, which for decades has been involved in settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian homes. The Secretary of State has not confirmed why a full ban on settlement goods has not been brought in. When she says that the practicalities are too complex, the British public see only a Government dragging their heels. Will she clarify what those practicalities are? Once again, why is it possible to have a full ban for occupied Crimea but not for the occupied west bank?
Yvette Cooper
Today, we have introduced new, strong sanctions against organisations that are operating, fuelling funds or trading in the illegal settlements. We have different sanctions regimes, including geographic and thematic regimes. We believe that the regimes need to be strengthened, and we are looking at ways to do that that give us more flexibility to respond to different circumstances.
Obviously, in the case of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we want to be able to target the illegal settlements and the trade and activity there, but we do not want to impact on the long-standing, legitimate trade that runs right across Israel with organisations and businesses and provides links between communities. Other countries that have looked at how to do it, and what mechanisms to use, have found it challenging and raised different practical issues, but we continue to look with our international allies at what measures could be strengthened to address exactly those issues and to promote the cause of peace and security.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What exactly are the Brits going to contribute to the multinational maritime mission in terms of hardware? Has Ukraine offered up its two Sandown-class mine-clearing vessels and crew, which are currently in Portsmouth?
Yvette Cooper
The multinational maritime mission is led by the UK and France. We have set out and been looking at particular assets that can be provided as part of the mission. It is, of course, multilateral—the point is that it needs to include a range of different countries. We have had discussions with Ukraine, as have many Gulf countries, because of its particular expertise in drones and modern technology in terms of air defences, and support has been provided for some of the Gulf partners.
The precise assets used in practice will depend on what is needed at the point at which—we hope—settlement will be reached. One of the points discussed as part of the settlement is whether Iran will do the de-mining, which would clearly be most effective because it laid the mines in the first place. We would like Iran to do it first, if that is possible.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and in particular the fresh wave of sanctions she announced, as well as the new measures against British businesses and charities that fund and support illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. This morning, I and other MPs met former members of the Israel Defence Forces who served in Gaza, and they gave us some pretty shocking testimony. They told us that their rules of engagement were to allow the killing of more than 20 civilians for every Hamas commander targeted—sometimes up to 300 civilians per commander. They also said that they were given shoot-to-kill orders for any adult male of military age within a designated area, including unarmed men, and that there was a systematic demolition of civilian homes. What role can the UK play in amassing evidence to hold Israel to account for what are clearly war crimes in occupied Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
The account that my hon. Friend provides is deeply disturbing. We know that there has been systematic disregard for civilian life. We have seen the huge numbers of people killed in Gaza, including huge numbers of children. At different stages in the conflict, we saw people shot at while queuing for the most basic food. People who were desperate to feed their families ended up being shot at and losing their lives. There has to be accountability and there have to be investigations. There also has to be peace and stability. We must ensure that as part of the implementation of the 20-point plan, we get back on track so that Palestine can be run by Palestinians. That, in the end, is the best way to keep them safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State in her statement—in her own words—talked of Netanyahu’s condemnation of settler violence as being “hollow”. Will she allow the Great Israeli Real Estate Event to proceed on UK soil this weekend? If she does, could she not be accused of the same thing?
Yvette Cooper
We are pursuing that issue. We do not want any illegal settlements to be advertised in the UK and we do not want any businesses to be engaging with that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions and guidance that the Secretary of State has set out. Given the scale and pace of settlements, can we ensure that the sanctions are regularly reviewed? I agree with colleagues that a ban on settlement trade should be looked at again.
The London property conference sounds really concerning. What sanctions will be put in place if property is being sold on occupied land?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to keep all our sanctions under review and to build on the sanctions regimes we have in place. We have led the world on sanctions and done more on this than most other countries around the world. Wherever possible, we have built partnerships to involve and include other countries to get them to sign up to similar sanctions as well, because, frankly, that is the best way to have an impact.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
A constituent wrote to me as he was deeply concerned that the British public had been misled about the UK’s involvement in the US conflict with Iran. His sister lives next to RAF Fairford and reported 24/7 use of the base by US bomber flights in May after the ceasefire. Residents were experiencing constant aircraft movements and noise, with little or no respite. Constant use of the base does not appear to be consistent with facilitating
“specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities”.
Will the Foreign Secretary reassure both the House and my constituent that RAF Fairford was used exclusively for defensive strikes against Iran, that no RAF planes or drones have conducted reconnaissance over Palestine or Lebanon and shared that intelligence with Israel, and that the truth here is not being concealed from the British public?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that RAF Fairford is a US base. We were clear at the beginning of this conflict that we would not support the use of the base for offensive action against Iran as part of the conflict. Once Iran started to strike Gulf partners, including their civilian infrastructure—their airports and other assets—and to put lives at risk, including those of British citizens, we provided support for air defences directly. UK assets provided that support and we enabled basing support for US operations. That was the right thing to do to defend our partners who were facing Iranian strikes. There is a difference between the offensive approach and the defensive approach, which is the one we have taken.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, Israel continues to violate international law with total impunity. I welcome the Secretary of State’s actions against individuals and networks that enable settler violence, but it just does not go far enough. Why will she not at least commit to banning all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and introduce a comprehensive sanctions regime against the Israeli state?
Yvette Cooper
We have strongly distinguished between the illegal settlements and the Israeli state. We also distinguish between the illegal settlements and businesses in all parts of Israel that have long traded across the world, including with the UK, many of whose owners or investors may strongly disagree with things that the Israeli Government are doing or with illegal settlements and settler violence. It is important to separate out Israeli businesses more widely and the specific issue of illegal settlements.
We do not want to see trade with illegal settlements, we do not want to see UK businesses operating within those settlements, either in financial or economic activity, and we certainly do not want to see them supporting construction contracts for the E1 settlement. That is why we have introduced this new wave of sanctions to target the organisations that have been most strongly linked with facilitating and funding those most linked with settler violence.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is grave and that renewed international energy and focus are required if the level of humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza is to be increased with the urgency the situation demands. With that in mind, will she ensure that increased international co-operation and immediate action to ameliorate the situation will be a key priority of the discussions held in Paris later this week?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, that will be a priority for discussions in Paris. The other thing that the Paris event will seek to do is to bring together Palestinian and Israeli civil society groups. As well as trying to reinvigorate the international coalition and energy behind the peace process for not just Gaza but the west bank, the event seeks to bring together civil society groups from Palestine and Israel to stand together for peace.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Though I appreciate that the ban on trade with illegal settlements may be complicated, it is our moral duty to overcome those complications. Conflict creates very serious issues for some of the poorest countries in the world, which cannot withstand the energy and food crisis shocks, and that creates a risk of further conflict and instability—for example, in sub-Saharan Africa. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken with international allies to address those risks, and might she give us an update on the situation in Sudan, where further atrocities are taking place?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend that the closure of the strait of Hormuz is having an impact on oil across the world, as it is on fertiliser, including for sub-Saharan Africa. Some states, according to their level of dependency on different supply chains, are particularly heavily affected by that impact on the global economy. We are closely monitoring which countries are affected and directly raising that with the World Bank and other organisations, while making sure that our official development assistance and aid support reflect those issues. On Sudan, we continue to work closely with the international community and we will be having further such meetings shortly, because this continues to be the most horrendous humanitarian crisis and we need that international energy around Sudan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary will know that the ongoing violence continues to take a horrific toll on civilian populations across Lebanon, Gaza and the wider region. Given our legal obligations under the strategic export licensing criteria, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of UK-supplied components being used in violations of international humanitarian law? Will the Government publish those assessments so that they can be properly scrutinised? Will they now take the decisive step to halt all arms exports to Israel?
Yvette Cooper
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we make ongoing assessments. We take immensely seriously our obligations relating to strategic export licences under international humanitarian law and ensure that assessments continue to be made. That is one of the reasons we suspended arms exports to Israel in a series of areas soon after this Government came to office—it was exactly because we took that so seriously—and, as I understand it, why we also published legal advice at that time.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I add my voice to others across the House in urging for stronger actions on Israeli war crimes. Fertiliser is a key issue, not just in my constituency but across the world. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers who are deeply concerned that not only do they feel the pinch already, but that that will shortly pass on to UK consumers and drive up the already spiking cost of living. Will the Foreign Secretary outline some steps that she is taking to make sure that more fertiliser is available in our part of the world and, indeed, across the world to combat global hunger?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he is right to champion the farmers in his constituency. The closure of the strait of Hormuz risks impacting on the cost of living right across the globe. That is why we have made the reopening of the strait central to what needs to be achieved in a peace settlement. It has to be full and unconditional, and not just a partial reopening, because it is so important to get the fertiliser, the oil and the different commodities flowing again. We must also look further at our economic security and supply chains more widely, because we should be seeking, internationally, to avoid choke points where any country can hold the global economy to ransom in the way that Iran has done.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am sorry to say that the sanctions and actions announced today will not prevent Israel from continuing to act with impunity and committing one war crime after another. On Friday, I received a reply from the Foreign Office to a letter that I sent three months ago on the UN commission of inquiry findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. In that reply, the Minister for the Middle East stated:
“as soon as this Government took office, we ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which has continued to conclude that Israel is not committed to upholding IHL in Gaza.”
Why, in the light of that assessment, are the Government still limited to giving statements of concern, rather than taking meaningful actions to prevent further atrocities and breaches of IHL?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of that review, which was commissioned immediately after we came into government, that we suspended a whole series of arms export licences. We took practical steps, just as we have done in providing additional aid and support, and in introducing whole swathes of sanctions—this is our fourth round in this area—and we will continue to do that.
To get overall impact, however, we need an international coalition; no one country can do it alone. The impact that was felt in the autumn to achieve the 20-point plan for Gaza took countries from around the world coming together. That is what we need again, and that is why we need to drive this through international diplomacy and activity, as well as through the actions that we in the UK take.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need to help the Palestinian Authority is the opposite of the approach that she has rightly outlined for British companies, individuals, organisations and charities regarding the illegal west bank settlements? By that I mean that we need companies, individuals and others to be encouraged, and indeed empowered, to help the Palestinian Authority with rebuilding, economic development, governance and more. As she has said, that would “reinforce the unity of the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine” which would be in support of the global alliance to implement a two-state solution, which I hope she can reiterate that we support.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points, because in order to have a state of Palestine, we need to support the Palestinian Authority to become a functioning and effective state. That includes funding, but it also includes pressure, because the Israeli Government are currently withholding Palestinian money, and that money needs to be restored to it. We need to be able to support the Palestinian economy as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the update on the new and co-ordinated sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary today. According to the United Nations, its figures show that violent incidents perpetrated by illegal Israeli settlers in the west bank reached an all-time high last autumn—for the shameful reason that the attacks reach their peak when there are fresh olive harvests to destroy. This behaviour is state sanctioned, and settlements are state sponsored and state financed. This Government accept that the settlements are illegal, so why have they chosen not to end trade with illegal Israeli settlements once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of our deep concern about the illegal settlements, and also about the escalating scale of settler violence, that we have introduced the new sanctions, which go after the organisations that have the greatest impact in terms of funding and organisational support for the settlers, where we have seen these serious problems. We have also strengthened the issues around business, because no businesses from the UK should be trading or engaging in economic activity in these illegal settlements. We will continue to work with international allies on what more can be done, both around illegal settlements and around the wider peace process. I say again that we will make progress on this wider peace process only in conjunction with our allies and partners.
Bill Presented
National Security (State Threats)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Jo Stevens, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of bodies involved in foreign power threat activity; to create offences relating to bodies designated under this Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
00:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:45 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
Under the Order of the House of 21 May, we shall now move to the Committee of the whole House. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 52
Compensation scheme regulations
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Compensation scheme regulations must include provision which specifies that payment of compensation may be made until any written estimate under section 54 (4A) is laid before Parliament.”
This amendment works with Amendments 8 and 9 so as to require regulations to specify that payment of compensation cannot be made until the Secretary of State has published a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of the steel undertaking, provided to them by the independent valuer.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.
Amendment 8, clause 54, page 35, line 25, leave out “may—
(a) require or permit”
and insert—
“must—
(a) require”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, page 35, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) The regulations must—
(a) provide that the independent valuer prepares and submits to the Secretary of State a written estimate of the environmental liabilities of that undertaking, including but not limited to—
(i) contamination of land, water or air attributable to the undertaking’s operations;
(ii) compliance with environmental obligations imposed by or under any enactment; and
(iii) remediation or restoration costs that are contingent or prospective;
(b) provide that the Secretary of State must publish and lay any written estimate provided under this subsection before Parliament.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 6, page 35, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) the anticipated effects of—
(i) external tariffs on UK industry; and
(ii) the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, as set out by Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 on the value of a steel undertaking.”
This amendment would require consideration of external tariffs and the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, when conducting a valuation of the Steel undertaking.
Clauses 54 to 57 stand part.
Amendment 20, clause 58, page 39, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”
This amendment would only allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the NAO had concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers.
Amendment 22, page 39, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not in any five-year period provide financial assistance under this section of an amount that exceeds £1 million per employee of the steel undertaking.
(1B) The number of employees of a steel undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1A) is the number of persons employed on the date the financial assistance was first provided.
(1C) ‘employee’ has the meaning given by section 230 (Employees, workers etc.) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
This amendment would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over 5 years.
Amendment 24, page 39, line 24, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance under this section may not include funding provided by the National Wealth Fund.”
This amendment prevents money from the National Wealth Fund being used to provide financial assistance under this Act.
Clause 58 stand part.
Amendment 4, clause 59, page 39, line 29, insert at end “and,
(b) compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the compensation paid under any compensation scheme regulations made under section 52.
Amendment 10, page 39, line 31, leave out “12” and insert “3”
This amendment together with Amendment 14 would increase the frequency with which the Secretary of State must make reports about financial assistance to every three months.
Amendment 11, page 39, line 33, leave out “12” and insert “3”
See explanatory note for Amendment 13.
Clauses 59 and 60 stand part.
New clause 6—Parliamentary scrutiny of Financial Assistance—
“(1) Before providing any assistance under section 58, the Secretary of State must lay a proposal for providing the financial assistance (‘the proposal’) before Parliament.
(2) No financial assistance may be provided under section 58 unless the proposal has been laid before Parliament.
(3) If, within the period of 90 days after the proposal has been laid, a select committee of the House of Commons makes any recommendations with regard to the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the recommendations before providing any financial assistance.
(4) The proposal must include—
(a) details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance,
(b) the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance,
(c) the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance,
(d) any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and
(e) any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal, subject to the restrictions in subsection (3).
(5) The proposal may not include information which, if it were made public, may damage—
(a) national security;
(b) fiduciary duties; or
(c) commercially sensitive interests.”
This new clause prevents financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance being made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for its consideration.
New clause 12—Financial assistance: limit—
“Financial assistance of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion may be provided under section 58 of this Act before 15 August 2029.”
This new clause would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.
New clause 13—Financial assistance: England and Wales—
“Where financial assistance is provided to steel undertakings in England under section 58 of this Act, an equivalent to the total amount of financial assistance provided to steel undertakings in England must be made available to steel undertakings in Wales.”
This new clause requires equivalent funding to be provided to steel undertakings in Wales compared to those in England.
Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.
New clause 7—Impact assessments—
“Before exercising any power under this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment on the proposed exercise of that power.”
This new clause would require an impact assessment to be published before the Secretary of State exercised any of the powers under the Act.
New clause 4—Limit on expenditure on financial assistance and compensation—
“(1) The total amount of compensation paid by the Secretary of State under Part 2 and financial assistance paid under section 58 is limited to—
(a) £500m, or
(b) an amount so authorised by resolution of the House of Commons, whichever is higher.”
This new clause prevents the Secretary of State from paying more than £500m in financial assistance and compensation under the Act, unless the House of Commons passes a resolution authorising them to do so.
New clause 9—Duty to try to find a private sector purchaser for any nationalised steel undertaking—
“Where a steel undertaking has been subject to the principal transfer power under this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make all practicable efforts to find a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking; and
(b) lay a report before Parliament every six months which sets out progress made towards finding a private sector purchaser for the steel undertaking.”
This new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector buyer for any steel company that has been nationalised, and report to Parliament on progress made every six months.
New clause 10—Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.
New clause 11—State aids—
“The Secretary of State must not exercise the powers in this Act so as to grant any advantage through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade, including any advantage that might be granted to steel undertakings subject to a transfer power over comparable privately-owned steel undertakings in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing-field between nationally owned and privately owned steel businesses.
Sarah Olney
We heard throughout yesterday’s debate from Members across the Committee about the importance of steelmaking as a vital strategic sector in the UK, and no doubt we will hear about it again today. We rely on the sector for essential parts of our national infrastructure, for transport and for advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking and the industry more broadly create thousands of good jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities, and in increasingly uncertain times, it is essential to support our defence industry.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector, and we note that it is in that spirit that British steel producers also support these measures. We need to see more ambition and clarity in the delivery of the steel strategy—for example, when it comes to boosting domestic production to meet 50% of domestic steel demand, further incentivising the use of British-made steel in the private sector and managing the transition to electric arc furnaces.
I wish to speak in favour of amendments 7, 8 and 9. These would strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they were explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments were made. They highlight the principle that the true financial position of an undertaking cannot be properly understood without a clear and transparent assessment of its environmental liabilities. By accepting the amendments, the legislation could work as a package to ensure that environmental liabilities were not only considered but formally assessed, published and laid before Parliament.
In particular, the amendments would require an independent valuer to prepare a written estimate of the environmental liabilities associated with the undertaking, including contamination of land, water or air; compliance with environmental obligations; and current and future remediation or restoration costs. That would ensure that the full environmental cost of the undertaking’s operation was properly captured, including liabilities that might not yet have crystallised but were none the less foreseeable. Crucially, the amendments would link the process to the timing of compensation payments, specifying that compensation could not be paid until the environmental liabilities estimate had been produced and presented, and ensuring that taxpayers were not left to pick up the bill for any environmental damage caused by the company’s previous owners.
Furthermore, I wish to speak in favour of amendment 6. This amendment would require that when carrying out a valuation of the steel undertaking, consideration was explicitly given to the impact of external tariffs and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It reflects the reality that the value of a steel business is not determined solely by its internal operations and that it is also significantly influenced by international trade conditions and environmental policy frameworks.
The previous Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and interim last-minute packages. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and they erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel. This legislation should be much more ambitious on an improved agreement with the EU for steel exports. Given the international nature of the steel market and the growing importance of carbon-related border adjustments, it is reasonable that these factors should be explicitly included in valuation methodologies. Amendment 6 would help to ensure that any valuation was not artificially insulated from key external drivers of cost and competitiveness. It would also provide a more accurate basis for decision making.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am interested in what the hon. Member has had to say on amendment 6. She spoke specifically with regard to steel making. Has she also had representations about the impact of these tariffs on UK manufacturers who make things out of steel, as well as on steel stockholders? Is it her intention through the amendment to get further information on that, or is that not its purpose?
Sarah Olney
That is not the specific purpose of the amendment, but I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I know that the Minister has heard about this issue on a number of occasions, throughout the debates on this Bill and during the urgent question last week in the Chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the point that has been made on multiple occasions across this House about the tariff regime and the changes that are coming in. I have spoken to a number of manufacturers about the very real concerns right across the sector about the changes in tariffs. I know that the Minister is focused on that, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us another opportunity to raise concerns with the Minister, which I know he has heard.
Amendment 5 would extend the Government’s reporting obligations to include progress on negotiations with the European Union—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that amendment 5 has not been selected and so would be out of scope for this debate.
Sarah Olney
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. I will reframe my remarks slightly, because they relate to the intervention that I took.
Steel producers in the UK are heavily integrated into international supply chains, and continued access to frictionless or improved export arrangements is vital for sustaining jobs and production. From 1 July, the Government will limit tariff-free steel imports. Although in many ways that will support business, there is a lack of certainty about costs and the impact on downstream manufacturers is still opaque.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a moment to gauge where she is in her notes while I take her back momentarily to amendment 7. She spoke about the importance of steel to our defence industry, which is therefore central to European security and to deterring the threat of Russian rearmament, but amendment 7 would produce significant procedural barriers and slow down our ability to use the Bill. Does she agree that such amendments risk causing serious impediments to supply-chain security, particularly for our defence industry?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for underlining the real importance of the steel industry to our defence industry and the heightened importance of sustaining our defence industry, and all the companies and the jobs associated with it, in this time of heightened global instability. Liberal Democrat Members certainly believe that support for our defence industry is paramount at this time, but it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise all the costs associated with the proposed undertaking should the Government choose to exercise the powers in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment 7.
Clause 52 will give the Secretary of State broad powers to establish compensation arrangements linked to the exercise of transfer powers, including transfers of shares, property rights and liabilities. Amendment 4 would require the Government to report not only on the existence of compensation schemes under the clause, but on the compensation actually paid under those schemes.
My new clause 6 would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of any future financial assistance. It would require, before any assistance is provided, the Secretary of State to lay a detailed proposal before Parliament, setting out the nature and amount of assistance and the intended beneficiaries, the purpose and expected effect, and any associated conditions, including repayment terms, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities.
In a similar vein, new clause 4, in my name, would introduce parliamentary oversight, and compel the Government to bring forward a resolution for any expenditure by the Secretary of State under part 2 that exceeds £500 million, which is roughly equivalent to the annual cost of keeping the Scunthorpe plant running, based on the publicly available figures. The clause reflects the principle that, where significant public funds are being committed, there should be clear parliamentary control and oversight of the overall financial exposure. By setting a defined limit, it would ensure that expenditure does not escalate beyond what has been explicitly agreed by Parliament without further democratic approval. The measure is designed to ensure a balance between enabling necessary intervention and maintaining proper oversight of the total level of public expenditure involved. I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of the new clause.
Steel is a valuable sector with far-reaching benefits across the UK for critical infrastructure projects, defence and the future of renewable energy. The steel industry is vital to so many of the UK’s national strategic priorities. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s pace and urgency in taking action to assist the steel industry, but there is a significant need for greater transparency and accountability relating to how these measures will be exercised. There is potential in the Bill to improve training opportunities for steel exports, and I urge Ministers to consider our proposals on that matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Perkins
Thank you very much, Madam Chair—that was a pleasant surprise.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I will take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s steps in the Bill, which build on the steps that we took with the emergency legislation that ensured a future for Scunthorpe. We all recognise that steelmaking is part of our national security. Without steel capability, we are simply unable to be truly independent in military terms or in many other terms. The commitment of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensuring a future for British Steel is not only sensible and ambitious, but a welcome change from the policies that were pursued by previous Prime Ministers over too many years to mention.
At a time when there has been such huge pressure on the public finances, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are stepping forward with £2.5 billion to boost the steel industry, along with the important measures relating to those with expertise in the industry, which is a complicated sector. It is therefore very welcome that the Government’s efforts in these areas are being led by those with such expertise in the sector.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunities from an electric arc furnace, but does he recognise the vital importance of keeping blast furnace primary steelmaking capability, which can only take place in Scunthorpe?
Mr Perkins
Yes, I do. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that I had the opportunity last night to predict that he would be the leader of Reform by the time we went into the general election, and I stand by that. We would normally expect to see a party leader in the House of Commons. We never see the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in the House of Commons, which is why I predicted that it would be the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—but I am getting distracted and will return to his question.
I am absolutely committed to doing everything we can to decarbonise, but in certain sectors doing so would be to deindustrialise. There is no sense in allowing blast furnaces only for imported products and not looking after that ourselves. I welcome the Government’s drive and direction, but I absolutely want to see that future for Scunthorpe. We should look at ways that we can use greener gases rather than pursue anything against that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Nuclear is going to play a role in cheaper energy for households, and I welcome the Government’s announcement there will be an array of small modular reactors that will have to be made out of British steel. Equally, I regret the fact that offshore wind turbines are being built not in this country; they should be built here, out of British steel.
When I worked in the oil fabrication industry, we had thousands of trained welders. Today, we do not have so many people who could actually work with British steel. Does the hon. Member agree that, in parallel with doing the good work in the Bill, we should be thinking about keeping these skills, which are crucial to the future? If we do not have them, we will not use British steel.
Mr Perkins
I agree 100% about the importance of protecting skills, which has been a huge priority of mine throughout my time in this House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that skills have been lost from the sector, as we tragically and foolishly allowed the steel industry to be stripped away, as he rightly pointed out, by the Conservative party. That has been tremendously damaging to our national security, our economy, our industry and, as he rightly says, the skills base in this country.
I am very supportive of what the Government are doing in this Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to speak, as I did a moment ago, to a question raised with me that is somewhat parallel to the narrow terms of the Bill, but is relevant to amendment 6 and to amendment 5, which has not been selected. We are—absolutely sensibly—taking measures on the tariffs to prevent the dominance of the Chinese steel industry, which sells steel at ludicrously cheap prices and is attempting to get all other countries to lose their steel industries so that we will then all be dependent on China. However, we have to be careful that we do not cause unintended consequences for British manufacturers that use steel and for our international competitiveness. We do not want to end up in the position of, for example, rolled bar, where we do not have reliable and strong provision of that here in the UK. We need to tread carefully with this. I know the Minister is on this, but I take this opportunity to come back to that point.
I have already written to the Secretary of State about a manufacturer in my constituency that makes transport ramps out of steel, and three other companies in the constituency are more directly involved in steel stockholding and have products manufactured out of steel, and they are all deeply concerned about where we currently are on this.
I know we have the current plan for 1 July—that is not far away at all. If we do not get this right, the consequences could be extraordinarily serious. I know that is on the Minister’s list and that it is prominent in his mind, but I add my call to all those others who say that we need to tread extremely carefully. With that, it remains only to say well done to the Minister and the Government for their continued backing of steel, and I look forward to seeing this—
Mr Perkins
I was just about to finish, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it cannot wait, I will happily bring him in.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend has been speaking about the steel strategy in the round. I wish to echo his remarks about the lower part of our defence sector, but there are also our small and medium-sized enterprises that make things that are not necessarily identifiable as tangible defence things. We need to ensure that we understand the types of steel that they require and the consequences of the tariffs on them. It is also important that we understand the steelmaking strategy as a whole, so from ore all the way through to direct reduced iron. We need to ensure that in gaining our sovereignty, we can create more reliable partners and separate some of the places that produce ore from the production that has traditionally been done in China. Does he agree that is something we must ensure is encompassed in this? That is why I am concerned about some of the amendments that have been tabled.
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who clearly speaks with great knowledge on these subjects. He makes an important point, once again raising the importance of this whole area of legislation to the defence industry and to sovereign capability. The reality is that our defence industry is crucial economically, for jobs and for our national protection, but also for exports. We should absolutely welcome those British manufacturers making things here and selling them across the world. If we inadvertently cause them to be less competitive, we will rue the day, so we need to tread carefully. But his point about ore and those amendments is well made.
I will sit down now, but I tell the Government that they have my absolute support on this approach to the nationalisation of British Steel, and I ask the Minister to respond to the points I have made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Yesterday we discussed amendments in which we sought to rein in some of the unfettered powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in this legislation. Today’s amendments are about trying to rein in the unfettered liability and financial risk that this legislation puts on the taxpayer.
For example, amendment 20 would allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance if the National Audit Office has concluded that it would secure value for money for taxpayers. The amendment is obviously about making it clear that these powers are not a blank cheque, that they must be constrained, justified and used only when strictly necessary. We cannot have industrial improvisation when the British taxpayer is being asked to pick up the bill. It is not fair that hard-working taxpayers should be forced to pay for a potential failure of Ministers who think they are able to defy the realities of this market.
Amendment 22 would cap the amount of financial assistance that could be provided to a steel undertaking to £1 million per worker over a five-year period. It would also fix the employee count at the point that support begins, with “employee” being defined by section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment would ensure that financial assistance is targeted, proportionate and provides value for money. If the Government believe in this intervention, as they clearly do, they should be willing to set limits on it, because without such a cap we are simply asking taxpayers to sign up to an unlimited liability.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
Would the shadow Minister consider that putting a limit on this, when the financial support would only be provided in an emergency, when absolutely necessary, might be unwise and might lead us to having to recall Parliament yet again to take the necessary action?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I take issue with where the hon. Member is coming from on that, because by putting a sensible and finite limit on the amount per employee—and I will speak later to another amendment where we propose an overall limit—we are talking about the amount that has been set by the Chancellor through the spending review envelope. I do not think she really wants to say to the Committee that there should be completely unlimited budgets for this intervention. She herself would know that in any intervention we ought to go in with a wise idea about what is a reasonable spending limit.
Amendments 10 and 11 would increase the frequency with which Parliament is told about the amount that has been spent. Currently, as it is framed in the legislation, the Secretary of State must make a report to Parliament only every 12 months. We are suggesting in these amendments that reports about financial assistance should come every three months. We are talking about substantial and significant sums of public money, so we do not think that annual reporting would be sufficient. Quarterly reporting would ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise how much money is being spent and how much is being done in closer to real time. It is essential that financial exposure is monitored closely and transparently. We do not want costs to escalate without people being able to notice them, and we want Ministers to remain accountable for public spending.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I have both been Ministers; we know that a written ministerial statement is not a complicated thing to do every three or four months or whatever it is. I struggle to see what reason there could be not to give Parliament that transparency, for the simple sake of a piece of paper tabled once every three months, to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know the Minister to be an extremely reasonable man, so I am sure he will agree with our amendment.
New clause 12 would place a firm cap on the total financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill, limiting it to £2.5 billion. As I am sure the hon. Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash) and other Members know, that is the limit that has been set for the steel strategy, so to reach that limit would mean that this intervention used up the entire amount allocated to the overall steel strategy. The new clause would set the limit up to a specific date in 2029.
As our explanatory statement makes clear, the purpose is simple: to limit the total financial exposure under the Bill. At the moment, the way the Bill is phrased means that it is a completely open-ended financial commitment. We think that a cap of this nature, which would ensure that Ministers had to prioritise their spending decisions rather than continue to inject funds without clear limits or outcomes, is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge everyone to support it.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Lady is making a very important and interesting point. In the steel industry over recent years, we have seen foreign companies buying British firms, then closing them down and leaving us without this capability. Would anything in new clause 9 prevent that from happening again? Having forced the Government to seek this buyer, is there anything in it to stop that buyer coming in and just closing the business down, meaning we lose that sovereign capability?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We are looking at a Bill that the Government’s own impact assessment says might have a bit of a “chilling effect” on inward investment into the sector. We should all want to have inward investment into our economy. If someone who we regard as an excellent owner of this business should come in and make an offer that is attractive to the Government, I absolutely think the Government should be prepared to take that seriously. We do not want this to be a permanent state of affairs; we want it to be a journey to a thriving steel sector, which may well involve investors coming in from overseas.
Mr Perkins
I think the hon. Lady is in the same place as the Government, in that they want to see an excellent private sector partner at the earliest opportunity. The point I was trying to make is that she would be compelling the Government, in new clause 9, to seek this provider, and we have seen what has sometimes happened previously. Is she saying that, ultimately, we must do whatever the market decides, or is she basically supporting the Government’s position that this sovereign capability must remain in the UK and that we will work with other partners, but they will not be able to shut down British steelmaking as they have done in the past? Will there be any provisos in the new clause?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman seems to be conflating two issues. Last year, when the emergency legislation was introduced and Parliament was recalled on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, we did not stand in its way, but what we are asking for in the new clause is for Parliament to be kept informed. Let us agree that we all want to be kept informed about how the discussions are going and to find out what the Government are thinking about their exit plan. I made the point yesterday about the public interest test that it is very unclear whether, once the Secretary of State determines that it is in the public interest for this particular site to be owned by the taxpayer, there will ever be the potential for it to change to different state.
Richard Tice
The shadow Minister seems to be implying that, essentially, the business should be up for sale at any moment, almost at any price. It is incredibly destabilising for any business and its employees to suffer that uncertainty. What is required is a period of stability and investment, with a strong vision. She previously made comments about relying on auditors at the National Audit Office to make a strategic judgment about what is in the sovereign national interest. With the greatest of respect to auditors, it is experienced businesspeople—including the Minister—who understand the industry and who can make a much stronger judgment about what is required to retain primary steelmaking in this country, with that sovereign capability, than a bunch of auditors.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I actually think the hon. Gentleman is also agreeing with me on this point. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister and his expertise in this industry, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he too thinks that it will take business nous and investment into this business to bring it back to a state where it is making money. I also heard him say that he would therefore not object to hearing a report to Parliament every six months about the progress being made, so I look forward to him supporting this amendment in the Lobby later. We want our Ministers to actively work towards returning the business to private ownership, so we want to hear in Parliament about that ongoing progress and to be able to hold Ministers accountable and ask them questions on exactly that from time to time.
New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every six months on the impact that nationalising steel undertakings has had on inward investment into the UK. I mentioned earlier that the Government’s own impact assessment worries about the potential for a “chilling effect” where Government are taking assets into public ownership in the way that this Bill allows. During its history, the UK has very much relied on being seen as a stable and predictable environment for inward investment. Expropriating and nationalising private businesses sets a precedent that could deter future investors, not just in the steel sector but across the wider economy. The new clause would ensure that Parliament received a regular, transparent analysis of how these interventions were affecting investor confidence and capital flows into the UK economy. We all hope that they would not be adversely affected, but we would want Parliament to know, and this new clause would ensure that any damage to our reputation was identified, understood and addressed early.
New clause 11 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers in the Bill to grant any selective advantages through state resources that could distort competition. It would ensure that nationalised steel undertakings were not unfairly advantaged over privately owned ones. Without this safeguard, there is a real risk that nationalised entities could receive preferential treatment, whether through subsidies, contracts or regulatory advantage, undermining fair competition within the domestic steel sector. If private firms believe they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with state-owned competitors, that risks deterring further investment in UK steel and related supply chains.
To conclude, these amendments are about bringing discipline, transparency and balance to a Bill that, as drafted, risks being too broad, too costly and too unconstrained. They would ensure that any intervention was properly assessed, carefully limited and consistently scrutinised, while protecting taxpayers, competition and investor confidence. If the Government are serious about supporting the steel industry, they should also be serious about accountability, value for money and a credible long-term plan, and these amendments are designed to deliver exactly that.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill to nationalise British Steel, reversing one of the many mistakes of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. I will speak against new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which would seek a private buyer for the nationalised British Steel company.
It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to nationalise British Steel and set out a clear strategy to strengthen domestic production. While the strategy will safeguard our steelmaking capability, we must recognise the realities facing the downstream steel sector, which has been impacted by having to compete with the unfair terms of international markets and by being consistently starved of investment. Many such businesses, including those in my constituency, depend on imported grades and products that the UK simply does not produce and that are regularly used in our defence force, the automotive industry and construction.
I also oppose new clause 11, which would require the Government to create a level playing field between nationally owned and private sector businesses. While I support in principle the use of quotas and tariffs to back British Steel, we must avoid unintended consequences for the downstream industry. Sudden or poorly calibrated changes risk undermining downstream firms. These businesses are vital in constituencies such as mine, and supporting domestic production must not come at the expense of the wider steel ecosystem. I have discussed these matters extensively with the Minister on several occasions, and I look forward to welcoming him to Stourbridge in the coming weeks to meet a local steel company.
Downstream companies have expressed legitimate concerns about the present proposals. I sincerely thank the Minister for engaging with me and them on these issues, but can he confirm whether, in cases where particular steel grades are not currently produced domestically, including zero-carbon grades, the Government intend to allow exemptions from the proposed tariff and quota regime? The most recent stance is that tariffs and quotas will be reviewed in 12 months’ time, but I really fear that that will be too late for some businesses. Will he consider transitional arrangements at the very least to offer some stability to the downstream industry?
I will also speak against new clause 12, which would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Bill. While supporting British Steel, we cannot ignore the climate crisis. Our steel industry must be driven towards green, decarbonised production. On that point, the steel strategy states an ambition to transition to carbon-neutral steel production with electric arc furnaces when market conditions allow. It is worth noting that SSAB in my constituency, which is part-owned by the Swedish Government, imports zero-carbon steel from Sweden, where such steel—its only by-product is water—has been produced using electric arc furnaces since the 1980s.
Following the Government’s introduction of an investment debt rule in 2024, I encourage the Minister to consider what further flexibility there could be to use a similar investment method to enable the transition away from coal-based steel production. I hope that he will reflect on those points and continue to engage well with the industry. With the right decisions, I believe that we can secure a competitive, resilient and low-carbon steel sector for the future.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
There is those three lions on my shirt, our NHS, the joy of holding a brolly over a barbie on another washed-out bank holiday Monday, that sweet smell of fish and chips on a Friday, a Mr Whippy on the beach, strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, His Majesty the King, the pageantry of trooping the colour, nil points at Eurovision, Fifa Ultimate Team, “Strictly” at Christmas, a “Gavin and Stacey” special, Monty Python, that Geri Halliwell dress, Phil Mitchell, James Bond, KSI, corgis, Larry the cat, Ant and Dec, accents, having that main character energy—and steel. Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.
Before I turn to new clauses 12 and 4 and amendments 20 and 7, which I am against, I want to begin with Martin Welch. Today marks 48 years since Martin began working at Scunthorpe steelworks, and he is now its longest-serving employee. That is 48 years of skill, graft, and loyalty to an industry that has helped to build this country. Martin has also been a champion of safety for his coworkers, standing up for people who are doing difficult, skilled and sometimes dangerous work. When we debate steel, we are debating people like Martin, families like his, and communities whose working lives, pride and futures are bound up with the future of British steel.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just made the point that I wanted to make, which is that we surely cannot make an ideological decision that it is always right to put national assets of sovereign capacity back into the private sector when, over generations, private industry has singularly failed to make the steel industry flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Lee Pitcher
I absolutely agree. This is not about heritage or the sentimental value of steel, although those things are of course important. Steel means something to people in their hearts, but, with a business brain, this is just about doing the right thing for the industry and for our country, our people and our communities.
Steel is part of who we are. It is in the homes we need to build, the railways we need to renew, the energy infrastructure we need to deliver and the defence capability we need to protect our country, and it is in the skilled work, pride and industrial strength of communities that have already given more than enough to Britain. This debate is not only about a steelworks; it is about whether Britain is prepared to act like a serious industrial nation again. For too long, we have been too casual about losing the things that make us strong: factories, skills, supply chains, ownership and industrial capacity. We have allowed strategic British assets to pass out of British hands and then pretended that ownership does not matter. It absolutely does.
In Dunscroft, Hatfield, Rossington, Thorne and Moorends, people know what happens when a major industry is allowed to collapse. They do not need a lecture in industrial policy; they and their families have lived through it, and their towns still live with the consequences. The loss of coalmining was not just an economic event but a social rupture. It damaged local economies because it damaged confidence. It damaged pride and the sense that the country valued the people and the places that powered it. That damage is still visible 40 years later.
When people say that the Government intervention is too bold, too risky or too ambitious, I say that they need to look at the cost of not acting. Doing nothing is not free. It has costs for jobs, skills, supply chain resilience, industrial communities and national capabilities. It leaves Britain less able to build, less able to defend itself and less able to stand on its own two feet. That is not prudence; that is managed decline, and I did not come into this place and into politics to manage decline.
This Bill says that when a foundational industry is at risk, when thousands of skilled jobs are at stake, and when national resilience is on the line, the Government do not have to stand aside and hope the market sorts it out. The market has not sorted this out. Decades of decline, under-investment and foreign ownership have brought us to this point. The choice before us is not between some perfect private sector solution and public ownership. The real choice is between responsible public action now or allowing a vital national capability to disappear. We cannot allow that.
Some of the amendments before us seem to start from the idea that Government intervention is dangerous. I disagree: the danger is delay and timidity. The danger is pretending that rigid caps, lengthy processes and automatic routes back to private sale are the same thing as responsibility. Managed risk is not recklessness; managed risk is leadership. If we keep doing the same safe things, we will keep getting the same results. Those results are the decline that people keep voting for us to change—the change that I come to this House to be part of.
This is a time to be bold and to step up. This is a time to take well-managed risks in the public interest. There are times to seize the bloody obvious and deliver for the country, and this is one of them. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the families across my constituency who depend on those jobs, for the industrial communities that know exactly what happens when the Government walk away, and for the future strength of this country, I support this Bill. Britain needs steel, Britain needs British assets in British hands, and Britain needs a Government with the confidence to act in the national interest.
This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. It turns the tide on 40 years of ideological self-sabotage. That is why amendments that would delay, dilute, cap arbitrarily or force a route back to failed models should be resisted. This Bill deserves the support of the Committee today.
Pamela Nash
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). What a passionate speech—I hope I can do half as well as him.
At the outset, I should state that I am a long-term and proud member of Community trade union. I thoroughly welcome the Bill, which takes additional steps forward from the legislation we passed last year. I am especially happy that the Bill is UK-wide and covers Scotland, too.
I want to touch on my concerns regarding new clauses 4 and 12, which seek to limit the level of financial support that the Government can provide. Given that the provisions in the Bill are designed to be used only in emergency and necessary situations, such amendments seem unwise. Over decades, we have seen Conservative Governments let down the steel sector time and time again by failing to support and invest. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Conservatives are seeking to bring into the Bill unnecessary and debilitating restrictions that are based on politics rather than the needs of the steel sector.
Mr Perkins
When I asked the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about this point, it was instructive that we heard her resort to saying, “It is just about being kept in touch.” The new clauses say that the private sector is always the way to go, but we know from our long history with the steel industry that that idea has often led to private companies coming in, mismanaging or indeed closing British steelmaking companies, and us seeing sovereign capability disappear overseas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the Government can always act in the national interest by rejecting the new clauses?
Pamela Nash
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is certainly the experience we have had in Motherwell in my constituency, where a questionable buyer for Dalzell has caused many problems. I will go into that later in my speech.
I am disappointed, and surprised, that the Liberal Democrats are seeking an even more restrictive limit on potential support. For us, Motherwell became the unwilling emblem of the Tories letting the steel industry down in the 1980s, with the closure of Ravenscraig and the subsequent loss of thousands of jobs across the area. It has taken decades even to begin to repair the damage that was done at that time.
In recent years, the Tory Government failed to prevent cheap imports and to bring in the investment and strategy that were needed to protect what was left of our steel industry. I therefore feel that Members on the Opposition Benches have an absolute brass neck in trying to put limitations on this Labour Government’s ability to breathe life back into it.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady referred specifically to our new clause. Does she not accept that we are merely asking for a further parliamentary vote if the proposed consideration for transfer exceeds a certain level, and that that is a sensible and workable way forward? Not only do we need to be open to the possibility of enabling the Government to take steel into national hands, but taxpayers’ interests need to be protected, and Parliament needs to have oversight of any decision of that nature.
Pamela Nash
If we brought the Government to Parliament every time we wanted them to intervene when there was an emergency, we would not be able to react effectively, so I do not accept that that is necessary.
Sarah Olney
It would take just hours to do that. All we are asking for is a safeguard. Without any kind of safeguard, what does the hon. Lady think would be an acceptable amount for the Government to offer in exchange for taking on a steel undertaking? Does she think that no limit at all would be acceptable? We are merely proposing that a motion should be laid before Parliament to be voted on, and that does not take much time.
Pamela Nash
This legislation is designed for extraordinary situations, so we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
Motherwell remains the home of steel in Scotland. While the immediate and particular focus of the Bill is, understandably, on the manufacturer British Steel, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the plight of what is currently our only Scottish steelworks: the Dalzell plate mill.
The Bill suggests three potential factors that can be considered in the assessment of whether it is in the public interest to nationalise a steel company or facility. Is the plant part of the supply chain for our defence industry, thus contributing to our national security? Is it necessary for the building and/or the maintenance of parts of our national infrastructure? Does it support the local or national economy? I would argue that the Dalzell plate mill is essential to all three of those elements of our country’s progress and security, and that we would be demonstrably better off if it was supported back to full operation.
When Sanjeev Gupta took over the plant almost a decade ago, he presented a vision of a bright future for Dalzell in a “green steel” era, but that has not come to pass. Like others, the plant has suffered as a result of the onslaught of cheap imports and the global events that our wider economy has faced, but Liberty has largely been unable to provide the funds or leadership needed to make Dalzell a success during its time at the helm, with repeated failures to deliver the raw steel that is required for the plant to fulfil orders and with staff left without work. There have been regular promises of materials and work being on the way, but more often than not they have been stalled or unfulfilled.
The current situation for the team of dedicated and highly skilled staff at Dalzell is difficult to imagine. The majority of them have spent most of the last two years at home on furlough, receiving less than their full pay. A skeleton workforce of about 20 is keeping the mill ticking over, ensuring that it is clean and maintained and that necessary paperwork is completed. They want to be ready to go as soon as an order comes in.
Lee Pitcher
It is really sad that we have got to that point. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of making bold decisions and taking a bit of risk is that it gives people aspiration for the future? It is about getting the next generation of children to set their minds on having jobs and careers in steel and manufacturing, working on the shop floor and having camaraderie. They need to envisage a future in which people have a regular, great income and support their local community and economy.
Pamela Nash
I share the vision of my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what I for Dalzell in Motherwell. At the moment we have staff who are worried each month about whether they are going to get paid, as they see troubling headlines and hear rumours about their parent company. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the mental health and wellbeing of the team, who have been left in an impossible limbo. Most of them want to be back in the workplace, in a job that they are proud of, and to be contributing to our country’s economy, security and infrastructure.
The workforce in Dalzell has now dwindled to 100—about a third of the full capacity. Predictably, key skilled team members are eventually leaving. These are people who are irreplaceable, because they have a unique combination of skills, qualifications and years of experience. Despite the team’s best efforts, the mill has not been used properly for a period of time, so the equipment and technology used in Dalzell is at risk of being dated and damaged out of value.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member speaks with passion and cares about her constituents. It seems that what she is saying is in parallel with my earlier intervention about the risk of losing the skills of working with steel—welding and suchlike. Does she share my disappointment, but perhaps not surprise, that there is no member of the Scottish National party with us today? We know that the Scottish Government set their face against all new nuclear in Scotland, but we would welcome an SMR at Dounreay in Caithness.
The hon. Member might agree that the Scottish Government are not helpful on defence either. She talks about leadership and shouldering the responsibility, but we have a gap—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Stone, we are here to debate the steel industry, not new nuclear or the pros and cons of the Scottish Government. Perhaps it is better if we stay within the confines of this Bill.
Pamela Nash
When it comes to Dalzell, the SNP Government have not been helpful. They previously stepped in when the steelworks went into administration, and then they sold it to the current owner, who has been less than helpful.
Richard Tice
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case for the importance of the heavy plate mill in her constituency, and of having the right owners of critical steelmaking capability and the functions around it. What we have seen with the failed ownership of Jingye, and with the failed ownership and fibs of companies such as Liberty, is that if we rely on an unaligned basis, without any care for the strategic importance of steelmaking, we end up in the pickle that we are in. That is why I think the hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the importance of the plate mill in the UK’s overall steel strategy going forward.
Pamela Nash
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.
For the reasons I have set out, we are getting to the point where we are losing experienced staff and equipment is in danger of going out of date. Time is running out very quickly for Dalzell. If it is left to close up shop, we will not be able simply to go back later and restart it. I have no intention of being the Member of Parliament who sees the closure of the last steelworks in Scotland, and I know the Minister has no intention of allowing that to happen on his watch.
Steel is Motherwell’s heritage and is also a key part of its progress. It is our threads in the fabric of the future of our country. I want my constituents once again to look at planes, wind turbines and bridges and be excited to know that the steel encasing them came from Motherwell.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I have seen in our all-party parliamentary group on steel and metals-related industries how my hon. Friend is such a tenacious and tireless champion for her part of the world and the steelworkers in it. She mentioned defence earlier in her speech. Does she agree with me that we really need the Government to bring forward the defence investment plan, that its focus really needs to be on making sure that steel jobs benefit across the UK, including in Scotland and in Teesside, and that small and medium-sized enterprises and the entire supply chain benefit as well?
Pamela Nash
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the publication of the defence investment plan, but I do not think it is within the scope of this Bill and it is definitely above my pay grade as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Defence Ministers.
Finally, I want to see Dalzell again supporting a vibrant workforce, providing safe, well-paid, high-quality jobs to local people and being able to develop apprentices for the next generation of steel processing in Scotland. I want to see income investment in Motherwell from the reinvigoration of this plant, allowing surrounding businesses to benefit from its success. I reject the attempts of Opposition Members to limit the Bill’s ability to support our industry when it needs it most.
In his closing speech, will the Minister reassure the workers at Dalzell that this Government will support them, possibly with the safety net of this Bill or otherwise, whenever it is necessary? Will he also confirm to the people of Motherwell that Dalzell remains at the heart of this Government’s plans for the UK steel industry?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Just like yesterday, this second day of debate has been incredibly considered and collaborative. I very much thank everyone for contributing, just as they did yesterday.
Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think many of the proposed amendments and new clauses fall into categories to do with the good use of public money in relation to valuations and liabilities, and to the role of this Parliament in scrutiny and reporting. I say at the outset, and I think this was put quite well by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash)—she did so in an intervention I had slightly forgotten about—that the Government are trying to strike a balance. We must strike a balance between the essential nature of government, with our public accountability and also the obvious bureaucracy, and the commercial demands of business. I think we have found the balance in the right place, and as I address some of the amendments, I hope to convince hon. Members that we have given due consideration to that.
Many Members, quite understandably, have highlighted specific cases in the steel industry that they believe the Government should consider. We have heard very powerfully about the plate mill at Dalzell and we have also heard about British Steel. However, this Bill is not targeted at any particular steel company; it provides powers to the Secretary of State to act in the national interest.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
This is not my specialist subject, so I ask the Minister to bear with me. Thames Covers in Shepperton in my Spelthorne constituency, which is a boat fitter, has been told that the cost of stainless steel tubing will go up by 50% from 1 July because of a new tariff kicking in. As I understand it, the tariff is to encourage people to buy British Steel, but the trouble is that British Steel does not make stainless steel tubing, so it will add a huge cost. The Minister says the Bill is not about individual businesses, but about overall governance. However, the Government may be causing unintended consequences, and perhaps the impact assessments we are calling for in new clause 7 would be a good idea.
Chris McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the trouble to make that intervention. A number of Members have talked about downstream steel, so although it is not precisely within the scope of this Bill—and, in fact, I do not think those impact assessments would address that point—perhaps I could address their comments.
Members have mentioned several different companies. This morning, I had a very constructive discussion with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), about specific instances, but she also pressed me on the concerns of many Members across the whole House. There are concerns about the introduction of the new trade measures from 1 July. I have, with the co-operation of Members from across the House, been able to gather specific examples from a number of different companies around the country that are concerned.
I am engaging with my officials and it is a matter of detail for each company. Some are finding that they will still be able to access the steels, because the measures are targeted at steels that are either currently produced or could be produced in the UK. Some have a concern because the steels that could be produced are produced primarily as speciality steels, or perhaps at Dalzell plate mill, as we have heard—certainly, the measures should incentivise some production there. Owing to the nature of the trade measures—they are grouped under eight broad categories, rather than extremely specific grade codes—some grades that are not made in the UK, such as seamless tubes, could be drawn into that. That is where quotas are important, so it is really an assessment of whether the quotas are right. Again, we have been able to provide reassurance on those instances.
However, I would never claim that the Government are infallible—I am certainly not—so that is why it has been very important to collect information and take action. In fact, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow I am co-chairing a meeting with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), in whose area this matter strictly falls, to talk specifically to downstream businesses. I would like to acknowledge not only Members, but the Confederation of British Metalforming and the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which have worked with me so closely on this matter.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I just want to make it clear that I did allow some latitude, but this is a debate on the nationalisation of the steel industry, not tariffs.
Chris McDonald
Okay. I am happy to give way and we will see what the Members have to say.
Paul Waugh
Simply to follow up, Ms Nokes, on the point the Minister was making about exemptions for individual companies, Hanson Springs in Rochdale relies heavily on imports of steel of a particular length. Will the Minister reassure us that, as with the shadow Minister, he will be engaging with many businesses to ensure that they are not hit by tariffs and that the Bill will not harm them?
The Second Deputy Chairman
I am going to allow the Minister to respond, but I am not going to allow this to turn into a debate on tariffs and how they may or may not impact individual companies around the entire country, which I fear is where we are headed.
Chris McDonald
Thank you, Ms Nokes. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to take the second intervention and respond just once.
Helena Dollimore
I recently met a local steel business to discuss this issue and how it can source more British steel in line with the principles of the Bill. It raised with me a keen desire to source as much as possible in Britain, but it is not sure if it can actually source all the products it needs in Britain. It mentioned hot rolled coil as one example. The business is called Fowle & Co. and it would be great if the Minister could commit for his officials to meet my local business and hear its experience.
Chris McDonald
I am aware of the issue with the springs company raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I think it is particularly an issue around 13 metre bars. My office is arranging a meeting with the company concerned. I am also aware of the issue on hot rolled coil and am addressing that, too.
Jamie Stone
I assure the Chamber that I shall not mention power of any particular sort. Will the Minister, if he has not done so, think about having a word with the Scottish Government and how they might help him in his endeavours?
Chris McDonald
I am always very happy to receive help from everywhere, but the Scottish Government could help themselves by taking a more proactive approach to nuclear, as the hon. Gentleman identified earlier. The Scottish economy could benefit from that.
Let me make some progress. I want to turn to the parts of the Bill that Members have raised in the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister for the amendments they have tabled. Amendment 4 was one of the amendments intended to extend reporting requirements around financial assistance and compensation under section 52. In the case of compensation, that is of course a one-off payment and so the question of regular reporting does not arise.
On the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to which the hon. Lady spoke earlier, amendment 6 is about taking into account ETS, CBAM and so on in valuations.
A number of comments were made about valuations and the role of the independent valuer, which we will also touch on when we consider the new clauses on capping compensation. It is particularly important that we draw a distinction between the role of Government and that of the independent valuer here, which goes back to some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. It is a serious and rare intervention that the Government are making, and one that should happen only when there is a market failure or a company is in distress.
Luke Myer
The Minister is right in what he says about trade. On amendment 6, however, industry is concerned that phasing out free allowances before the new CBAM is fully tested risks exposing UK industry to carbon leakage. Does he agree that the new CBAM must be robustly designed and implemented to genuinely level the playing field for industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metals-related industries. The Treasury is responsible for the carbon border adjustment mechanism and is consulting extremely carefully with the industry on that. I am sure that the Treasury will have heard his remarks and will take them into account.
Amendments 7 to 9 relate primarily to some of the environmental liabilities. The issue also arose in yesterday’s debate, where there were concerns about liabilities—the phrase “unlimited liabilities” might have been used. However, the liabilities are not unlimited. We have a reasonably good sense of what the liabilities are. We would expect the valuer to take those liabilities into account—that is quite right—but we have extensive experience with the remediation of similar sites elsewhere in the country.
The Committee has heard about the Ravenscraig site, but the Teesside site is a more recent example. The remediation of the Teesside site—the amount of public money spent on that—is well documented. The site in Scunthorpe is of a similar age, has had similar industrial activity, and is of a similar size. Ultimately, however, the Government are seeking to avoid the crystallisation of environmental liabilities by ensuring the continued operation of steel on the site. It is the responsibility of the valuer to take that into account when determining the valuation of the company. For that reason, the Government do not consider it necessary to support amendments 7 to 9.
Amendments 10 and 11 propose increasing the frequency of reporting on financial assistance to every three months. Again, it is the Government’s view that the current framework is proportionate in terms of the balance between transparency and delivery. We are incredibly concerned to ensure that we do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens. Inevitably, the management of a business acquired through the Bill and the civil servants in my Department would have to deal with the reasons for the business’s acquisition. Although we of course feel that reporting, transparency and accountability to this House are important, we are trying to strike a balance.
I know that amendment 20 is particularly important to the Opposition, so I will spend a bit of time on it. We are all incredibly concerned about value for money, but we have existing arrangements across Government to deal with that. It is already the case that Departments must secure value for money under the Treasury’s managing public money framework. It is also our view that the drafting of the amendment does not quite meet the requirement as described: that the National Audit Office would check the assistance prior to being approved. We think that putting this requirement in statute would unnecessarily reduce the Government’s ability to act quickly where support is needed. We have heard from many contributions today that on the presumption that the legislation will be required, the Government must be able to move quickly.
We have seen the need for acting quickly before. Harking back to a previous example of a failed steel business, I recall that we had only a matter of days within which to save the Teesside business due to a shortage of coal. Of course, we all remember that it was necessary to come back to Parliament at incredibly short notice to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, again because there was a shortage of coal, with the potential for those coal shipments to be diverted. It is therefore incredibly important that the Secretary of State is able to act quickly when required.
A couple of amendments have been proposed by Plaid Cymru Members—although they are not present, I think it is still responsible to address them. One amendment is about restricting the National Wealth Fund, with which I completely disagree. The National Wealth Fund is one of Government’s primary instruments for assessing potential investment opportunities and investing in industry. In fact, there is provision through the Government’s £2.5 billion steel fund for the National Wealth Fund to offer support to steel companies, as set out in the steel strategy. We intend to use whatever funding instruments are available to Government, not to restrict them.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Although Plaid Cymru Members are not present, another Welsh Member is. With the Minister mentioning the available funding, I will take the opportunity to raise a topical matter with him, which is the catastrophic fire that took place on the pickle line last week in Port Talbot. I want to put on the record our thanks to the emergency services and the steelworkers who worked so hard to contain it, as I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). The work is now being transferred to Llanwern, but it is a worrying time for those at Port Talbot. Does the Minister agree that, alongside the Bill, we must protect the jobs in the south Wales steel industry and ensure that they are fully equipped to support the expansion of sovereign steel that we all want to see as we go forward?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the incident last Wednesday at the Port Talbot site. Pickle lines are notoriously susceptible to these sorts of incidents because of the high-temperature hydrochloric acid used to treat the steels. I would imagine that once such a blaze has taken hold, the effects can be absolutely devastating. I want to echo her commendation of the emergency services and the workforce, who are, in this situation, the first responders, protecting life and valuable industrial plants. I was incredibly relieved to hear shortly after the incident that every single member of staff was accounted for. It is a credit to Tata Steel and its management processes.
I am, however, concerned about our loss of productive capacity there as a result of this incident. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we are fortunate in having another pickle line available in Llanwern, and I understand that as of last Friday Tata Steel is looking at restarting that plant and moving the work there—perhaps it has already restarted—but the hot mill was down for a time in Port Talbot. This really emphasises where we have points of vulnerability in our industrial capacity, not only in steel but more broadly. We are determined to address those points through this Bill, our steel strategy and our wider industrial strategy. I thank her for raising that matter.
Luke Myer
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. He has made a couple of references to the Teesside site, both to the crash closure in 2015 and to the remediation of the land. With that land having now been remediated, immense steel structures are being built there as part of the Government’s carbon capture programme. It was great to be on site recently and to see the progress of that site. The project is using 50% UK steel; of course, Liberty Steel in Hartlepool has benefited from that. Does the Minister agree that procurement measures like contracts for difference need to be adjusted to ensure that we are using domestic steel in as much of our major infrastructure projects as possible?
Chris McDonald
I agree that procurement has an important role to play here. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed recent changes in guidance by the Cabinet Office to ensure that British steel producers are well placed to win these orders, as well as in the areas of renewable energy, where the Government are awarding significant contracts, and nuclear power, where we are again endeavouring to ensure that British companies are well placed to win those contracts.
I turn to amendment 22 and new clauses 4 and 12, which would impose statutory caps on compensation and financial assistance. I have already addressed compensation, and financial assistance is somewhat similar in that applying a cap on the basis of the number of employees, or indeed a fixed cap of any kind, would ultimately restrain the Government’s ability to respond effectively to circumstances as they evolve.
I believe that could fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is for the Government, with the will of Parliament, to be ready to respond to circumstances such that we are not required to fly back from wherever we are in the world at incredibly short notice, and prolong uncertainty among the workforce and suppliers. We do not want to create any legal uncertainty, uncertainty in the supply chain or commercial uncertainty. That is why it is important to have this level of flexibility.
The Bill has proportionate and robust transparency and accountability mechanisms for the provision of financial assistance. For instance, clause 59 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at 12-monthly intervals, and funding will be subject to the established framework for managing public money, including through Treasury approval processes.
New clause 6 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to put forward a proposal to Parliament about providing financial assistance if a Select Committee were to make recommendations on that. Again, that is not realistic. Given that financial support would be required immediately following a transfer, there would not be time for that level of parliamentary scrutiny. Important though scrutiny is—I certainly welcome the investigation into steel currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee—we have to be realistic about the point at which it is possible to apply scrutiny.
New clause 7 would require impact assessments to be published before exercising the Bill’s provisions. Again, the issue is essentially about pace among other things. We believe that impact assessments are crucial to show the impact of Government intervention, and the Government are committed to operating in line with our better regulation framework requirements. We do not want to introduce any further legal uncertainty, so we reject the new clause.
A number of colleagues mentioned new clause 9, so it is important to address some of the issues raised around that. Fundamentally, the new clause would not be at all helpful; I will give an example as to why. There is an assumption in the new clause that if the Government were to nationalise a business under the Bill, the best approach would be to treat it like a hot potato and immediately throw it away. We have seen the impact of that.
We heard yesterday about the nationalisation—briefly—of British Steel by the previous Conservative Government: they spent £750,000, made no investment in the business and immediately sold it on to a company called Greybull Capital, whose track record was failure at Monarch airlines, failure at Comet electrical stores and failure at Rileys snooker halls. If you cannot run a snooker hall, you definitely cannot run a steel company.
This is where the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have some points of agreement: there is more than one way to bring investment into a business other than selling it to an overseas investor. We could have debt and equity finance, and the Conservative party used to be keen on mass public ownership via a listing on the London Stock Exchange. There are many different ways in which we can bring private sector investment into a business and resolve issues around ownership.
Of course, it is intolerable to work in a business that is constantly up for sale—I have been in that position myself—as businesses do not perform in that position. A decision to sell a business is a decision made at a point in time, not an ongoing process. The Government therefore reject that new clause.
Given that I have detained the Committee considerably over the last couple of days, I have no wish to do so any further. I hope that, having responded as fully as I can to the amendments and new clauses, the Members who tabled them might feel sufficiently reassured not to press them and therefore save the House their consideration. I fully and sincerely thank everyone for their incredible participation in the debate, for the marvellous speeches that we have heard today, and for their strong interest in the steel industry that I have worked in and which I continue to champion in this House.
Sarah Olney
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Financial assistance
Amendment proposed: 20, page 39, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only provide financial assistance under this section if they are satisfied that financial assistance will secure value for money.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we proceed to the next business, I have a short statement to make. I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby on the Division that took place in Committee of the whole House at 8.27 pm yesterday on new clause 2 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. The hon. Members for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 257, rather than 251. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 65 and the noes were 251.
—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 111.]
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government believe in Britain’s steel future. This Bill will help to transform that belief into a reality. It will ensure that the long-term vision for our UK steel sector is realised, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and to support this Government’s economic growth plans. This Bill provides powers for the Government to bring steel companies into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met.
In many ways, the progress of this Bill has shown the House at its very best, with passion, insight and determination to take action in the national interest. We had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with Members from all parts of the House recognising the importance of passing this legislation. Let me begin by thanking Members for their time and their thoughts. I express my gratitude to those who have contributed to the passage of this Bill so far, especially those who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the details of this vital piece of legislation right.
I also take a moment to recognise those working in and supporting our steelmaking communities. Every day, they make a vital contribution to our country’s economic security. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard much about the specific situation at British Steel Ltd, and in particular about its current ownership status.
Let me be frank with the House: our decision to proceed with this Bill—to take these powers now—has absolutely nothing to do with the national origin of the current owners, Jingye. We have always been and remain country-agnostic about the current ownership. We simply believe that the British public interest should be paramount in determinations about future ownership. We continue to welcome international investment into the UK, including from China. We remain committed to our legal and international obligations to overseas business and foreign investors. We are fully compliant with our treaty undertakings to protect overseas investors and businesses operating in the United Kingdom.
While this Government need to take steps to secure UK Steel’s capability, we are committed to doing so in a manner that respects the rights of businesses. When and where the Government exercise the transfer powers in the Bill, an independent valuer will be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, is payable. The Bill requires a clear public interest test and provides for a compensation scheme where that might be relevant. The Government fully respect the rights of businesses and investors subject to this Bill. We will continue at all times to act fairly, regardless of the nationality or background of those businesses.
I place on record my thanks to parliamentary counsel and officials in my Department for their hard work on drafting and guiding the passage of this Bill. I also thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and all of the House and its authorities for making the passage of this legislation possible. Let me also, on a personal note, pay tribute to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). A lifetime of dedication to the steel sector has brought valuable insight, passion and creative parliamentarian work to the Bill, which has enriched the debate in this place.
The House has sent a clear message about the importance of decisive action to safeguard the future of the steel industry. Since I became Secretary of State, I have championed an activist, interventionist industrial policy—activist, because the years of standing back and watching British industry decline are over; interventionist, because we, like other Governments around the world both right and left, from the United States to France and Germany, step in to invest, modernise and protect our industries. Our policy is both activist and interventionist, because purpose without action is merely rhetoric, and acting without purpose is performative, not strategic. The Bill is action with a purpose, and the purpose is clear: to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s steel.
I am encouraged to witness the strength of support in the Chamber for this activist, interventionist Bill. As it moves to the other place, let me reiterate my commitment to continued engagement with parliamentarians as it completes its passage and we ensure that the Government’s vision for Britain’s steel sector becomes a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I think it has been clear throughout these two days of debate that none of us in the House underestimates the importance of the steel industry to our national economy, to our industrial resilience, and to the communities whose livelihoods depend on it. We can all agree that steel matters, and that steel jobs matter. However, we also believe that the responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money matters, and despite the eloquent way in which the Secretary of State expressed his views on the Bill, we see it much more as a chaotic and unplanned intervention. It is not the product of a clear steel industrial strategy, but the product of a failure to negotiate a better outcome. The negotiated outcome was a possibility; the Secretary of State even went to China to try to achieve it.
It is the failure to address the root causes of the industry’s difficulties that has brought us to where we are today. The Bill could also be described as the steel industry blank cheque Bill, because it fails to protect the public purse from potentially vast and open-ended liabilities. Nationalisation does not solve the underlying issue that is making domestic steel production unprofitable. The higher employment costs, higher energy costs, planning issues, carbon pricing, regulation and levies associated with the Government’s net zero policies continue to weigh heavily on the sector, and the Bill does nothing to resolve those pressures. Instead, it transfers them wholesale on to the taxpayer.
We should reflect on how we came to this point. Not long ago, the Government told the House that they did not want to nationalise British Steel—indeed, that was presented as a last resort to be avoided—and yet here we are, because the Government have failed to negotiate an alternative. We see once again that when this Government negotiate, it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill. Since the intervention began last year, on that historic Saturday, the cost has already run to more than £1.3 million every single day. That is a bill for the taxpayer that will only become larger with this legislation. The Bill exposes the public finances to further liabilities—contingent liabilities, not only substantial but, alarmingly, potentially unlimited in terms of both their scale and their duration. This is a Government getting a blank cheque forever.
Richard Tice
The root cause of why we have the Bill is that the previous Conservative Government sold this business to Jingye in 2019. Another root cause is net zero, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Surely what the Conservative party should do is show some humility about why we are here and support the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Surely what the hon. Member should do is welcome the fact that our party is under new and outstanding leadership. We believe that politicians should not be in the business of running commercial enterprises, but I can see that that is the political position of the Reform party. The risks of inefficiency, political interference and poor capital allocation are very well known.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is right to say that her party is under new leadership, but what did that leadership think about the decision to sell British Steel to Jingye? What did the leadership think of the net zero policies that the hon. Lady blames for the current situation? What did the Leader of the Opposition think of them when she was in government, and what did she do to oppose them?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is a bit rich to be lectured on support for party leadership from someone on the Labour Benches, so I will move on swiftly.
This Bill sets a precedent. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment says that expropriating assets in this way risks undermining the investor confidence that we need at this precise moment, when the UK needs to attract inward investment into strategic industries.
Throughout our Committee considerations, we have sought to improve this legislation to introduce better transparency for Parliament, to limit liability and to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. I thank my team, the team of Clerks, the whipping team and you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Throughout this process, our amendments were responsible safeguards; they were designed to protect the taxpayer and to impose discipline on the Government. Their rejection only reinforces our concern that Ministers are unwilling to confront the full implications of their own policy.
As we come to Third Reading, the choice is clear. This Bill risks enormous cost, offers insufficient answers, and sends troubling signals about the UK as a place to do business. We cannot support it in its current form. We will not vote against its Third Reading today, but for the sake of the taxpayer, the health of the steel sector and the credibility of industrial policy in this country, we cannot support it either.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
In my constituency of Darlington, we know the economic importance of the steel industry, and many of my constituents bear the scars of the Conservative party’s unwavering worship of the global free market. Regardless of the social, economic, community or security costs, they badly let us down. The last Government refused to step in for our highly skilled essential steel workers in Redcar, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs and the closure of a 170-year-old industry, and thousands more jobs in the supply chain were lost.
The Conservatives demanded a cap on the cost to the Treasury for this essential intervention to protect out sovereign steel capacity, which shows that they still do not get it. It shows their fundamental misunderstanding of the mistakes they made while they were in government. Despite their historic defeat, they refuse to accept that their inaction on steel has already cost the taxpayer dearly, and not only in significant employment tax contributions but in the business contributions of this critical industry’s supply chain. It is their inaction that chilled investment.
We know that thriving supply chains boost local employment and incubate home-grown entrepreneurs. They boost confidence locally, and industrial communities such as ours support and cultivate thriving, close-knit business ecosystems—something that we in Darlington still benefit from greatly, despite the closure of SSI, Cleveland Bridge and British Steel on Whessoe Road.
The vacant South Works site in Darlington, which is currently available to rent, is 131,000 square feet and comes with three cranes. If anyone is looking for a magnificent industrial steel site in the heart of the country’s most investable town, please do contact me, and I will happily negotiate and advocate for a discounted rent from the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).
The pride that our community has in a critical, century-old industry cannot be overstated. It is vital for wellbeing, but it is security that is essential for growth. People employed in critical industries, whether self-employed, businesses or workers, can afford to spend locally—they have the confidence to get the kitchen done, or take the family out for a meal. It is insecurity that chills investment and growth. By securing this critical sovereign industry, this Labour Government are demonstrating and living our values, and delivering on the change that we were sent here to make.
The difference could not be more clear: where the last Government allowed an essential, critical, highly skilled, historical British industry to be decimated by inaction and ignorance, this Labour Government promote our most qualified steel industry expert to the Front Bench to protect high-skilled jobs, stand up for our supply chains, champion our communities and nationalise steel in the national interest—and I, for one, say all power to them.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As Members will be aware, part of the Scunthorpe steelworks site falls within my Brigg and Immingham constituency. As such, hundreds of my constituents work there, and hundreds more are employed in the supply chain. With that in mind, I made it known to my constituents a number of weeks ago that I would support this Bill. It could have been improved, and the Opposition tabled some perfectly sensible amendments, which I supported. However, having got to this stage, I think it is only right that we give our full support to the business and, more importantly, to the workers employed there. I thank the Minister with responsibility for steel. We have had a number of meetings in recent weeks, and he has been extremely helpful.
As I said in a previous contribution to this debate, it is not natural for me as a Conservative to support a nationalisation Bill, but the reality is that it is of course a restructuring. The existing position whereby the Chinese own the business and the Government in effect run it is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot allow that to continue, so it is a perfectly sensible move. I was reassured by what the Minister said in yesterday’s debate about the Government looking for private sector involvement, whether that be a wholesale sale or a partnership arrangement. I have met two or three groups that are interested in investing in the sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and I had quite an interesting evening a few weeks ago listening to what was, I think it is fair to say, quite an ambitious plan for steel, so there are organisations and businesses that are prepared to invest.
Scunthorpe without steel would not be Scunthorpe. As a resident of Grimsby, I have witnessed what can happen to a town when it loses its core industry—in the case of Grimsby, it was of course the deep-sea fishing industry—and when that happens, it takes about two generations for the local economy to be able to sustain the jobs that are necessary. On that basis, I will certainly be supporting the Bill.
The Minister was not quite 100% clear when challenged about the continuation of production in blast furnaces. I know the situation, and I recognise that a long-term move to electric arc furnaces is perhaps the only way to sustain the industry and the jobs in Scunthorpe. So I await developments with interest, but at this stage I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible way forward and has my full support.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
I welcome the contributions from both sides of the House, in particular from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). Like him, I represent an industrial constituency. My constituency in north Wales sadly holds the record, in any western country, for the largest number of industrial redundancies in one day. I think it speaks to all the constituencies affected that that goes through not just generations, but families—different generations of the same family. Many of my constituents have been affected, as have I personally.
The most exciting thing about how the Government have been very decisive on working to support and encourage British-made steel is not only what it does for just the steel sector, but what it says about our ambition to have proud, decent, good-quality jobs back in the UK. I thank everyone who has contributed. It is an absolute privilege for my communities to vote the Bill through today.
Peter Kyle
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her passionate speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) for her heartfelt speech just now. Those are the kinds of contributions that give heart and soul to what we are trying to achieve, and that give voice to the communities affected. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his contribution. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
17:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 86 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I was left with no choice but to make a point of order on the Government’s refusal to give briefings to shadow Ministers on national security matters. Today, we are told that the Government wish to push through the National Security (State Threats) Bill next Wednesday in just one day.
Once again, the Government failed to offer a briefing to the official Opposition, yet this morning—five hours before the Bill was laid in the House—the media had a one-hour briefing at the Home Office containing the detail. As a shadow Minister, I have now been invited to a one-hour briefing on Monday night—a day after amendment submissions close—with every other MP in the House. Can you kindly guide us on how the Opposition can get the briefings we need so that we can hold the Government to account, not least when they are seeking to rush legislation through the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and indeed for notice of it. She obviously knows more about the contents of this Thursday’s business statement than I do. I understand that the Bill was published when it was presented, just after 3 pm, but that a technical problem meant it was not easy to access online. I understand that copies are now available in the Vote Office. It would have been courteous for Ministers to offer the hon. Lady advance briefing on the Bill—particularly if they intend to expedite its passage through the House—but I am afraid that I have no power to compel them to do so.
Adjournment (Summer and Conference)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16 July 2026, do adjourn until Tuesday 1 September 2026; and at its rising on Tuesday 15 September 2026, do adjourn until Monday 12 October 2026.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Delegated Legislation (Committees)
Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
Ordered,
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221), which was laid before this House on 3 June, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Petitions
Road Safety: West Midlands
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am bringing forward this debate because of the many fatalities on the roads in the west midlands, and the catastrophic consequences of collisions and crashes. In seconds, happy worlds are turned upside down, lives are destroyed and families are left grieving their loved ones. My constituents are dying on the roads as a direct result of successive Governments’ inaction on tackling the scourge of speeding and dangerous driving, and I intend to set out exactly what must change.
Let me begin with an example that has stayed with me. On 19 May, a constituent contacted me to say that drivers on a road near them were regularly travelling at more than double the 30 mph speed limit. They were frightened, and they wanted something done, so I wrote to the Government to raise their concerns. The response I received was that the Department for Transport was not at that time considering any changes to the data used in assessing road safety interventions. On the same day that the response arrived, there was a fatal accident on that road—and that was the third death on south Warwickshire roads in a few days.
The Government must change their approach to road safety and intervene to save lives on our roads. They must also safeguard and consider all road users, and any new measures must protect vulnerable users such as pedestrians, walkers, cyclists and roller skaters, and ensure that funding for active travel infrastructure is available to communities so that people can enjoy safe walking, cycling and horse riding. Why must cycling infrastructure cost millions of pounds? Why is it so difficult to have separate and well-marked cycle and active travel lanes in Britain?
I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, published in January. It is ambitious in its aim to cut the number of people killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads by 65% by 2035 and by 70% for children under 16. Yet a strategy without teeth is not a strategy at all. The Government need to commit to radical solutions; tinkering at the edges is no longer sufficient. The scale of death and serious injury on our roads demands bold, evidence-based action—and it demands that now. We need national legislation that is properly enforceable, that sets clear thresholds for interventions on dangerous roads and that does not leave communities at the mercy of local councils that are failing in their duty of care.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Although the debate is about road safety in the west midlands, many of the lessons that the hon. Lady talks about will apply nationwide, including in Leeds South West and Morley. Does she share my frustration that some councils rely on mean average speed data to determine whether to make adjustments on certain roads? As a maths teacher, I really appreciate the mean, but it hides the outliers. If we have 100 outliers out of 10,000 cars, that still makes for a dangerous road. Does she agree that councils should change their approach?
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the hon. Member for his passionate intervention, and I fully agree with him. I will talk a bit about what is happening in Warwickshire and I hope that Warwickshire colleagues will also intervene and share their experience. I also hope that the Minister will say something about guidance for local authorities, so that they are not just reactive but proactive.
Communities up and down the west midlands want to see proper enforcement and a reduction of speed limits in residential areas, especially where schools are located. My constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a case in point, where we are left exposed by the Reform-run Warwickshire county council. Parish councils and community watch groups work hard to gather data, but it is incredibly difficult to implement any type of traffic calming measures or speed reduction orders. Often, even if those are agreed, the cost of the proposals falls on parish and town councils. The problem is felt with particular force in rural constituencies like mine.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. As a constituency neighbour in Warwickshire, I share her concerns. I have been out with my local Speedwatch groups in Warton and Water Orton.
My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are fed up of dangerous roads simply being ignored by the Reform-led county council in Warwickshire. From the Woodford Lane junction, Grendon Road in Polesworth, No Man’s Heath Lane in Austrey, Marston Lane in Bedworth and King’s Lane in Newton Regis to Coventry Road in Fillongley, speeding is out of control and the lack of speed cameras is putting lives at risk. Meanwhile, Reform’s record on Warwickshire county council shows that it is spending less money on our roads. Does the hon. Member agree that communities such as mine in Warwickshire deserve safer streets, investment in road infrastructure and action on potholes from local government, not rhetoric about what information children can read in libraries or what flag can be flown from Shire Hall?
Manuela Perteghella
I absolutely agree. I would like the county council to focus on what really matters to our residents, rather than spending its first six months in power deciding which flag should fly on which flagpole or talking about other culture war policies. I received an email from a visitor to my constituency who had hit a pothole, which thankfully had not resulted in a crash, but his car had been badly damaged. Now he is in conversation with the county council. This is not good for residents, or for our local visitor economy. The council needs to get a grip on the state of the roads, which obviously contributes to these dangers.
In rural constituencies such as mine, speeding through villages is the norm. Speed limits of 30 mph mean very little when there is no enforcement to back them up. Our country lanes carry cars, lorries, farm vehicles and cyclists, and collision blackspots are all too common. Narrow roads prevent us from having things like chicanes or narrowings, because large farm vehicles obviously need to use the road as well. Street lights are also an issue when we have many dark sky villages. Rural communities feel abandoned due to the lack of police officers and, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) just mentioned, the lack of power for local councils, as well as the lack of attention from Government.
I will focus on some locations in my constituency, but the list is not exhaustive. Rather, it is illustrative of the road safety issues that we all have in the west midlands. One example that I want to put on record is the junction where the A422 Banbury Road meets the B4455 Fosse Way, just east of the village of Ettington. Every day, drivers, cyclists, bikers and farm workers navigate a junction that should never have been designed the way it was. I have been calling on the Department to step in and engage with Warwickshire county council to ensure that this junction gets the full safety review and redesign that it so urgently needs. People have already paid the price for the failure to act.
There are many other dangerous junctions, including Oakleigh Road and Justins Avenue, off the Birmingham Road in Stratford-upon-Avon, with residents reporting near-misses and, sadly, crashes too. I have had meetings with National Highways about the Billesley junction on the A46, but we are still waiting for improvements to that junction, where several fatalities have already happened.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Likewise in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, we have a clear picture of where our hotspot areas are. The hon. Lady spoke earlier about having teeth and the ability to proactively plan and work with councils and National Highways to ensure that we tackle these problems and prevent accidents from happening before they occur. Does she agree that we need to use our road safety strategy to change the culture from being reactive to being proactive and preventive in order to save lives before people are harmed and hurt?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, at the heart of this debate is changing the culture from local government to national Government. We need to have education and behavioural change, and I will say a bit about that, but the culture also needs to change. We need to be proactive, and we can be, because only then will we save lives.
Speeding near schools an issue. The children of Mappleborough Green primary school have written to me as they are experiencing fear and anxiety when crossing and walking along a very busy road that still has a 40 mph limit. We have a 40 mph limit outside a primary school. We are not getting any support in keeping those young children safe on their journey to school—and I am not even going to touch on the air pollution that the children are experiencing. What does the Minister say to those children?
Constituents have contacted me about speeding on the A3400 through Wootton Wawen village, which is making it difficult for elderly residents to cross the road to go to the post office or the shops and, again, for children to go to school. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned, we need a shift from reactive to proactive enforcement. We need that cultural shift. We cannot keep waiting for collisions to occur and then investigate the wreckage.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. It is striking how many of the issues she describes ring true for city constituencies as well. In Birmingham, the number of collisions has fallen over the past decade, but the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads has remained remarkably stable, at around 500 a year. That indicates that if someone is unlucky enough to be in a smash, the risk is actually greater. Many of our roads were not designed for the wider and heavier vehicles that now use them. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more adaptations for historic roads, and better and more up-to-date guidance on what interventions are effective in this age of wider and heavier vehicles?
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the hon. Member’s points. With the road safety strategy consultation and review, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make changes to the culture and assess the situation. If we want to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, we need to be bold and make sure that local authorities have better, bolder guidance on interventions for urban as well as rural areas.
For example, every time I ask for cameras, I am told that there have to have been five fatalities. There had been one fatality when I started campaigning for road safety in my village. I could not cross my road with my children—holding a little one by the hand and pushing the pram—so I started campaigning on road safety measures in my village. I was told, “You need to wait for five fatalities before automatic number plate recognition cameras are installed.”
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech, much of which resonates with me as the MP for Rugby. I am dealing with constituents and councillors who are concerned about the speed limit on the A426 into Rugby from junction 1 of the M6, which is currently 60 mph. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s new edition of the best practice guidance on setting local speed limits, plans for which were set out in the road safety strategy, cannot come too quickly? We need to ensure that residents and their elected representatives are empowered, but all too often the process seems almost resistant to those voices. As she rightly says, all too often we need the evidence of injury and risk to come first, and that is often too late.
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. With the new national road safety strategy we have a real opportunity to ensure that we reduce serious injuries and deaths on the roads. I hope the Government will take into consideration our views and the responses to the consultation, and will ensure that the guidance is updated so that we are not acting after a fatality, because that is too late. It is too late for the families and for the young drivers who might have crashed—it is lives destroyed. Also, we cannot have a speed reduction policy that is based on how fast the cars are travelling, rather than on the dangers they pose to road users, including children walking to school or elderly residents crossing the road to get to the post office, the shop or their GP.
We must identify the risks before lives are lost and intervene accordingly. That is the change in culture that Members have mentioned, and the change in policy that the Government must now commit to. There must be cultural change at council level, too, as currently there is a reactive culture in which interventions are made only if there is a history of road traffic accidents, and locations with recorded collisions, especially collisions resulting in injury, are prioritised. County highways authorities often use the speed that most drivers do not exceed as data to judge whether a road has a speeding problem, but interventions should not be based on how fast drivers are driving. We need a change to the Department for Transport guidance, which also seems to reinforce reactive behaviour, especially on speed limits. I look forward to hearing about that from the Minister.
A constituent in Bidford-on-Avon—one of my villages—told me recently:
“Current analysis shows that 63% of cars exceed the speed limit through the village.”
I raised this situation with the local police force, which told me that 35 mph is the enforceable limit—but why? The charity Brake says that a pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a one in five chance of being killed, rising to one in three if they are hit at 35 mph. Children can be killed at 30 mph, so why are we waiting to enforce at 35 mph instead of 30 mph?
Lee Pitcher
On schools, it is not just about speeding, is it? One the biggest issues is parking outside schools. We need to find a way to help schools to move parents on, or to have others come in—relevant organisations, the police force or National Highways—to support them. We need to give them the teeth or the accountability to come in and provide support; if not, we will lose more children crossing roads between parked cars.
Manuela Perteghella
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was a school governor for many years, so I know how teachers write letters to parents to ask them to park considerately, and also not to idle their engines, because obviously that causes lots of pollution, and health issues such as asthma. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that schools are given the tools to change behaviour. We can send as many letters as we want, but I often find that the thing that makes parents and carers change their behaviour is the children themselves—children telling their parents that it is walk to school week and that they want to walk rather than drive. The role of education is really important, and even firefighters, policemen or local councillors can go and speak to children at school to change behaviour from the ground up.
Wales and other nations are implementing 20 mph zones. I want to see whether we can learn any lessons from them, but because of all the data that shows how dangerous 30 mph is, I think 20 mph zones should be standard on new residential developments. In one of the new developments in an urban area of my constituency, the new road appears to link houses with a local school, but the speed limit will be set at 50 mph. Again, that was raised with Warwickshire county council, but it just said that it follows national guidelines, despite the council having a suite of active travel policies and the fact that the road goes through a residential estate. It is really difficult to make the council review that limit. We now have so many new houses being built, and this road cannot a have 50 mph limit. We really must ask local highway authorities to do better.
Let me turn to one of the groups we know are most at risk. Young drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 account for just 6% of new driving licences, but they are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. Those are young people from constituencies like mine and across the country who never make it home.
The evidence for what works is not hard to find. Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every single state in the United States already operate some form of graduated licensing for new drivers. Those schemes are sensible, proportionate and evidence-based, and they include measures such as restrictions on night-time driving, limits on carrying passengers—especially young passengers—in the early months of a licence, and probationary periods marked by visible plates. They save lives. We should be doing the same, and I urge the Government to look at graduated licences and to bring forward proposals without further delay. The RAC believes that a form of graduated licensing for young drivers could help to save lives on our roads. I want to thank my constituents Robbin and Patsy, who have been formidable campaigners for graduated licences and road safety for young people since losing their child.
Road safety is not just about physical measures; it is also about changing driver behaviour. Nationally, I want to highlight the work of THINK!, which has launched important and lifesaving campaigns, from encouraging the use of seatbelts to tackling excessive speed, drink and drugs and, recently, the use of mobile phones at the wheel. Such campaigns must continue to be properly resourced and funded and reach every driver.
The Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership holds an annual memorial service to remember the lives lost and injured on Warwickshire’s roads, which I attended last year. It was a sombre event, because we all knew that all these deaths and injuries could have been prevented. The families of those killed on the roads of the west midlands are not asking for the status quo; they are asking for change that will save lives. I am asking the Government today to deliver it.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I rise to speak about Chester Road in Erdington, which has become a real concern for many residents because of the repeated serious collisions and fatalities over recent years, the most recent being on 24 May 2026. Residents tell me that although speed restrictions and traffic calming measures have been introduced, too many drivers are simply ignoring them. There is a growing frustration locally that the rules exist on paper, but enforcement and compliance are inconsistent. Many of my constituents in Erdington feel there is a lack of clarity and consistency around speeding policy, particularly around how 20 mph and 30 mph zones are enforced in practice.
Communities need confidence that road safety measures will change drivers’ behaviour, not just introduce more signage. Residents want to see clearer national guidance, stronger enforcement and better co-ordination between councils, police and transport authorities. That is particularly important on major roads such as Chester Road, where speeding has devastating consequences for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
Lee Pitcher
We have a lot of farming communities and agriculture in the Isle of Axholme, and we have a big issue with horses often being killed on the roads. The space between a car moving at high speed down a country road and a horse is really important. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to take that issue into account, particularly when we talk about the importance of those animals to small and medium-sized businesses in my area?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Sometimes we do not look at the issues faced by people who live in the countryside because we are looking at the issues that we face on the busy roads in some of our areas. He is right that it is vital that we do not look only at what is happening in cities and we look at rural areas as well. God help me, I would not like to see an animal killed because of something that I or someone else had done on the streets, so I agree with him.
Road safety is not just a transport issue—it is a public safety and public health issue affecting families across Erdington and around the country. Local people should not feel frightened crossing the road, waiting at a bus stop or walking near a busy junction because speeding has become normalised. We cannot accept preventable deaths and serious injuries as simply the cost of using our roads. Will the Minister tell the House how residents can be assured that communities can have confidence that road safety measures will be enforceable on our streets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions. I thank her for the clear and thoughtful way in which she articulated the road safety issues affecting her constituents and communities across the west midlands.
Road safety is a priority for this Government. In January we published the first road safety strategy in over a decade. Safer roads support economic growth, enable more sustainable and active travel, reduce pressures on our NHS, and ensure that people can travel safely and with confidence in their daily lives. I am grateful for the constructive tone of the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon set out so clearly, road safety is not an abstract issue—it is about people, families and communities. Every road death is a tragedy. Even today, around four people lose their lives on our roads every day and many more suffer life-changing injuries. Behind each statistic is a family whose life has been permanently altered. The vast majority of these collisions are avoidable. They are too often linked to behaviours such as speeding, drink and drug-driving, distraction and failure to wear seatbelts.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
One of the key issues in my constituency is street racing. All over the Black Country we have young men driving in gangs, causing a menace and many accidents, so I was pleased that the combined authority had set up a High Court injunction to allow the police extra powers to tackle street racing, which caused a reduction in my area. However, I am concerned that both Dudley and Sandwell councils are withdrawing from that injunction, removing the police powers against police advice. Does the Minister have any advice for me or those councils on how they tackle street racing?
Simon Lightwood
I obviously urge all local authorities to do everything possible in their power to improve road safety, and I hope that they will consider very carefully their actions in this area.
While the number of casualties has fallen over the long term, progress has slowed in recent years. For too long, the situation has been accepted as inevitable. To those who shrug their shoulders and say, “Nothing more can be done,” this Government say clearly, “Enough is enough.” That is why our road safety strategy sets out a clear direction for change. It includes ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 65%, and of children by 70%, by 2035. It puts road users at the heart of our approach.
We are taking action across the system. We are consulting on a minimum learning period for new drivers, strengthening motorcycle training, improving vehicle safety standards and ensuring tougher approaches to dangerous behaviours, including drink and drug driving. We will also establish a new road safety board to monitor delivery and drive progress, but we must go further, particularly for those who are most at risk.
In 2024, 31% of those killed on our roads were pedestrians or cyclists. Those numbers are simply too high, and we must design a system that better protects those people. That is why we will update the manual for streets to ensure that future road designs support people who walk, wheel and cycle to do so safely and with confidence.
We are also taking action to tackle work-related road risk. We will pilot a new national charter to improve safety for those who drive or ride as part of their job. It is estimated that more than 1,000 pedestrians were hit by working drivers last year. We will work with businesses to reduce work-related road risk and improve safety for all road users. Too many lives are affected by preventable incidents, and we are determined to change that.
A number of Members have raised concerns about speeding. For many communities, this is not just about statistics; it is about near-misses, fear and a sense that nothing happens until a tragedy occurs, and I understand that frustration. People should not have to wait for a serious injury or fatality before action is taken to improve safety. Speed is a key factor in both the likelihood and severity of collisions, and it is right that we continue to focus on it.
Local authorities have the powers to set speed limits, including 20 mph limits where appropriate, and to introduce traffic-calming measures. It is for them to determine what is appropriate in each case based on local knowledge and evidence, but we are supporting that work. We will update guidance on setting speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras to ensure that authorities are able to take well-informed, proactive decisions.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon represents a largely rural constituency, and she is right to draw attention to the specific risks on rural roads. Those roads often carry higher speeds, have different layouts and can lack the infrastructure found in urban areas. When collisions do occur, they are more likely to be serious. We recognise those challenges.
It is essential that local authorities are able to take targeted action on higher-risk routes and that decisions reflect the needs of rural communities as well as urban ones. That is why we are working to ensure that interventions are better targeted on the risks presented by different road groups, including rural routes, where the consequences of collisions can be the most severe. We are supporting local authorities through updated guidance and evidence to help them to manage those risks more effectively.
Let me turn specifically to the west midlands. I recognise both the challenges and the progress that has been made. The region has a really complex road network, with busy urban centres, strategic routes and rural roads serving dispersed communities. That brings a range of risks, but this is a region showing really strong leadership. I welcome the commitment of the West Midlands combined authority to Vision Zero and the work being taken forward through its road safety action plan.
My colleague the Minister for Local Transport has visited the west midlands and was able to meet with the road safety commissioner. The appointment of the UK’s first road safety commissioner is a significant step in driving that work forward, alongside increased enforcement activity and the use of technology in high-risk locations. This kind of partnership working between local authorities, police and regional bodies is exactly what we need to see. Our role as a Government is to support that work through funding, guidance and a strong national framework, and we will continue to do that.
Enforcement is a critical part of improving road safety. Police forces, including West Midlands police, are responsible for deploying resources based on local priorities and risks. Their work—targeting dangerous, careless and inconsiderate driving—is essential to deterring unsafe behaviour and keeping communities safe. Technology also has an increasing role to play, whether that is through enforcement tools or vehicle safety systems that help prevent collisions or reduce their severity. We will continue to support both effective enforcement and the responsible use of new technologies.
Tragically, young drivers remain over-represented in road casualty statistics. We must strike the right balance between keeping young people safe and supporting their ability to access work, education and opportunities. Graduated driving licences and their implementation vary around the world—there is not one standard type. We are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period for England, Scotland and Wales, to make sure learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of driving. We already have a two-year probationary period for all novice drivers once they have passed their test, and we are now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales.
Let me turn now to some of the other points raised. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised the issue of data at the outset of her speech. She was referring to STATS19 having near-miss data; we have no plans to change that. STATS19 is the form that the police use to record details when they attend collisions that involve a casualty. On the specific issue of schools, road safety around schools, particularly the safety of children travelling to and from school, is a priority for this Government. Of course, protection for children is not limited to the immediate school frontage—national transport policy focuses on improving safety along the whole journey commonly made by children and young people, including school routes.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that the leader of Warwickshire county council consulting the public on whether children should walk up to 8 miles to and from school was a bad move?
Simon Lightwood
I will leave it to the local transport authority to make those kinds of calls, but I urge it to make sure that the safety of children is of paramount importance when making those decisions.
The approach we are describing includes the use of 20 mph limits where appropriate, alongside safer crossing facilities, traffic-calming measures, school streets schemes, enforcement and school travel planning. We support delivery of those measures through national funding, which includes £7.3 billion of capital funding for local highways maintenance. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon also mentioned her concern about her local authority, saying that five fatalities need to take place before it takes action. I can say categorically that that is not the case—local authorities do not have to wait for any fatalities before taking action to improve their roads.
Improving road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone. It requires action from Government, local authorities, enforcement agencies and road users themselves.
Lee Pitcher
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker— I have made lots of interventions today, but this issue is really important to me. On the topic of new developments, Warren Park estate in my area has had new roads for a long time, but some of the markings are not there. The developer and the highways authority need to work together; will the Minister encourage them to do so? There is one specific junction that is particularly dangerous. Will he join me in pushing them to resolve that issue as soon as possible?
Simon Lightwood
I very much hope that those people will have heard my hon. Friend’s message and will take action to ensure that everybody is safe using the roads.
As I was saying, road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone; it requires action from Government, from local authorities, from enforcement agencies and from road users themselves. This Government are determined to reduce road deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Through our road safety strategy, through stronger local partnerships and through a renewed focus on the causes of collisions, we are taking a more determined and more proactive approach. I assure the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the concerns she has raised today will be carefully considered and that we will continue to work closely with partners across the west midlands to support further progress. I once again thank her for securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John. I am very glad that the rain has managed to hold off so far, so let the summer begin.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 15 April 2026, is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—that is, the agreement under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction—the fact that I have had such trouble pronouncing it shows why it is always called “BBNJ”. It helps to implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried on in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before we can ratify it. The draft order enables this by amending the marine licensing regime.
I will begin by underlining why it is so important that the House supports this legislation. The BBNJ is an implementing agreement under the UN convention on the law of the sea which aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems vital to the health of our planet; they are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species, many of which we have not actually discovered yet.
Primary legislation was needed to implement our BBNJ obligations fully. Accordingly, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation needed for the UK to implement the agreement. The draft order is part of that work, and it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first conference of the parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.
The draft order implements the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. The draft order makes provision relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.
Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but only two marine licences for such activities have been issued since 2011. The draft order extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to the types of activities that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.
This instrument also makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an EIA as set out in the BBNJ agreement. The exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet our BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first, to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full EIA.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
What is the maximum fine for a company that does not comply with this regulation?
Mary Creagh
I do not have that figure to hand, but I am sure that the magic of the officials’ box will enable me to give the right hon. Member the figure by the end of the sitting—or perhaps he knows and can enlighten the Committee.
Steve Barclay
My reading last night suggested that it was just £50,000. It is interesting that the Minister does not know what the fine actually is. What does she think the cost of complying with the EIA requirement would be for a company?
Mary Creagh
That would depend on the activity that it was being asked to do. As I said, only two of these licences have actually been allowed under—
Mary Creagh
I am sure that it is expensive. Does the right hon. Member want to tell the Committee what it is?
Steve Barclay
I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.
Mary Creagh
Having been Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member knows the what is involved in monitoring activity in areas beyond our national jurisdiction. What we know is that this regulation will apply to British vessels, British persons and activities that are licensed and under our control. As I said, only two of these licences have been issued in the last 15 years.
We want the areas beyond national jurisdiction to be protected. Those are often areas of deep ocean, where we do not understand and have not mapped the seabed. During my extended sabbatical I went to see some of the marine science work, including marine mapping, going on at the University of Southampton. We want the high seas to be open and accessible to all. These controls are about making sure that, under this new convention, British vessels are not in breach of international agreements. With the right hon. Gentleman’s permission—
The Chair
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect entitlement to contribute to this debate, so perhaps he should wait until the Minister has concluded and then choose to make an incisive but pithy contribution.
Steve Barclay
I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take your steer, Sir John, and make this my last intervention. The Minister has tempted me to intervene once more, because the exact justification that she gave for the cost of compliance being 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine relied on enforcement, but the reason why there have been only two licences granted in the period she cited is that there is so little enforcement because this is beyond national jurisdiction. The Marine Management Organisation has no vessels in the Pacific. There is no impact assessment with this regulation. How will it be enforced in areas beyond our jurisdiction if there is no impact assessment and no additional funding for that enforcement?
Mary Creagh
I will correct the record. The magic of the officials’ box has informed me that the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine, not a £50,000 fine, and/or a term of imprisonment of up to two years. That is significant, so it certainly would be worth a company’s while undertaking an assessment, depending on the activity that it is trying to do. If it were deep sea mining and things like that, it might be financially worth it, but it is certainly worth the company thinking about it.
Of course, we do not need physical vessels to do enforcement, because we have eyes in the sky via satellite, and we can map these things. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire knows that we have satellites, because he contracted with Earth system satellites, which can map down to 100 or 200 metres. We do not need ships there; we can send ships where they are needed and take enforcement action.
Before the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I was talking about the activities that will not need a marine licence and about reducing the burdens on regulators. An exemption will be introduced for the removal of specified subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to fall consistently below the BBNJ screening threshold.
Alongside today’s statutory instrument, I would like to highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence—activities regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. That will ensure that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day that the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.
To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this statutory instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities that are regulated under part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. It also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden.
The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, from advisory letters to formal enforcement action, applied proportionately, based on risk and available evidence. Conditions can be placed on licences, requiring licence holders to keep records and make returns or to provide information to the MMO. It will develop intelligence gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address it. As it is intelligence-based, we would not be expected to say what those methods would be. Having just talked about satellites, I am sure that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will know that that may be one of the routes.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument. It is very appropriate that we are considering it on the day after World Oceans Day.
On our precious planet, we are blessed to have oceans and seas rich in biodiversity. It is an asset that we share in common with the rest of the world—a good in itself that sustains a diverse range of life. From whales to coral reefs, we have a vast array of fish, animals, plants and microorganisms living in our oceans. Our oceans and seas contain more than 80% of the world’s biodiversity.
Biodiversity is vital not only for protecting species and preventing extinction, but for safeguarding human health. Oceans and seas are a key source of the world’s food and oxygen, but they also greatly contribute to our understanding of the natural and life sciences. The UK has long been a global leader in marine research, supported by world-renowned institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the national museums in Wales and Scotland, the National Oceanography Centre and our outstanding universities, many of which hold internationally important repositories of marine biological data.
Marine genetic resources in particular demonstrate the direct link between ocean biodiversity and human wellbeing. Compounds derived from marine organisms have been instrumental in developing new medicines. Treatments for coronavirus, cancer, inflammatory conditions and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s all draw in part from genetic material found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine diversity is therefore not only an environmental imperative but a foundation for future medical breakthroughs.
The previous Conservative Government understood the need to conserve the biodiversity of our oceans and seas. That led Conservative Ministers to commit in the convention on biological diversity to protect a minimum of 30% of global ocean by 2030. In government, we Conservatives took real, practical steps to protect our marine environment. We strengthened England’s marine protected areas regime, establishing 181 MPAs, which now cover around 40% of English waters. Recognising that the UK’s overseas territories encompass 4.4 million square km of marine environment across every major ocean basin, we worked to conserve those precious ecosystems by halting biodiversity loss, supporting sustainable growth and connecting people with these precious natural environments.
We Conservatives also understood that the challenge does not end at our own shores. Around two thirds of the world’s oceans—roughly 61%—lie in areas beyond national jurisdiction: the waters outside any coastal state’s exclusive economic zone. Those vast areas are home to extraordinary biodiversity, yet no single nation can protect them alone. That is why Conservative Ministers championed general international co-operation to safeguard those waters and to support research into marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As we look ahead, it is vital that we strengthen that co-operation. Safeguarding life in areas beyond national jurisdiction is a shared global responsibility, and only by working with our international partners can we preserve these ecosystems for the benefit of humanity.
The previous Conservative Government played a central role in negotiating the UN’s biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. Signed on 20 September 2023, that landmark agreement represented a major victory for ocean protection and multilateral diplomacy. As the UK follows a dualist approach to international treaties, Parliament must pass domestic legislation before such agreements can take effect. I am therefore pleased that the current Government have continued the work that the Conservatives began by bringing the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 into force. That ensures that the UK now has the legal framework required to implement the agreement fully, responsibly and in line with the commitments that we helped to shape on the global stage.
The Minister will recall that during the passage of the 2026 Act, His Majesty’s official Opposition repeatedly raised concerns that while the Government were seeking to champion biodiversity and conservation on the global stage, they were simultaneously threatening to surrender the Chagos Islands, which may have risked the Chagos marine protected area, particularly should Mauritius not be able to enforce the protection. We therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have listened to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Chagossian community and wider public concern, as it appears that they have stepped back from proposals that could have jeopardised both the future of the islands and the integrity of the marine protected area. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case?
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft order, albeit it is a shame that it has taken so long to be introduced, which has been noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Once the agreement is ratified, the onus will shift to implementation. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that the Government will continue to work closely with key stakeholders such as the cable sector and marine scientists? We look forward to further progress from the Government in this vital area.
The Chair
Before I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, I want to say that I am happy to have an exchange on the Chagos marine environment, but I do not want a wider debate on the Chagos Islands and their future.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir John. The Liberal Democrats support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and welcome the draft order, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
We note that the statutory instrument introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk. While we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, it will be important that these exemptions are kept under review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. While we support the implementation of this treaty and this statutory instrument, we remain clear that the Government must ensure the new licensing exemptions do not become loopholes and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.
Mary Creagh
Allow me to take a moment to reflect on the importance of approving this legislation. Without it, the UK would not be a position to ratify the BBNJ agreement. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the “30 by 30” commitment was signed under the previous Government and that is an international undertaking which this Government take very seriously. It is all very well signing agreements—
Mary Creagh
The difference is that we are actually now saying where the money is coming from, how we are going to meet that target, and how we are going to aggregate the land and seas. An undertaking to do something, without having a plan to deliver it, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Hon. Members will appreciate that future industry activity is difficult to predict in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Our consultation and previous engagement with stakeholders identified some likely activities in such areas, including telecommunications cable activity, marine scientific research, space flight activity, and deep sea mining, but not all such activities will be in the scope of marine licensing.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about licence applications and the costs. There have been only two licences granted for an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch in 2022—I am not sure if he was the Secretary of State at the time; there were so many in those two years that I cannot be expected to remember who was where at that time. It was before his time, was it?
Mary Creagh
The other was for a dye tracer study in 2015. I am not sure what that means, but perhaps they were putting in chemicals to trace something—currents, for example. We might think, “Well, that’s a bit weird,” but if it is about finding where the currents and tides go, and where the winds are blowing, it all feeds into the brilliant science and weather forecasting we are able to do here in this country. We do not anticipate many activities being covered—I know the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the volume of activities—although the lack of past case studies makes it difficult to determine the volume of activities that might take place in the future.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest is right to raise the issue of the incredibly important marine environment around the Chagos Islands. It is home to 220 coral species—corals are on the frontline of the climate crisis and we are doing some great work, particularly in Cayman Islands, around tackling stony coral disease—855 fish species and 355 mollusc species, so it is incredibly important. However, I am sorry to say that decisions on what is or is not going to happen with the Chagos Islands are not a matter for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, and he is tempting me to stray beyond my brief. So with your permission, Sir John, I will leave it there, and agree it is an important protected area.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Sir John.
This is a once in a generation step forward in ocean governance, which ensures areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably as part of that biodiversity sharing agreement that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the absence of this legislation, we would not have the tools to assess and manage activities and their potential impacts.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was not going to intervene, but this is such a fascinating debate that I cannot help but bring in the fact that Harlow has a coral farm. We all agree that the order is important legislation. Despite some of the to-ing and fro-ing, there is cross-party support for it, but does the Minister agree that international support is also important? Does she get the sense that other countries across the world are implementing the same legislation?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shoe-horning in the Harlow coral farm. I am sure that an invitation for the Minister responsible for water and flooding is in the post and a visit is imminent. It genuinely sounds exciting. Of course, coral farms are important for working out which species are climate resilient and will be the coral reefs of the future. Coral is not just nice to look at when scuba-diving and snorkelling on holiday. In February, I managed to go on a snorkelling trip in Egypt with a broken wrist, for which I think I deserve some recognition. They make them tough in Coventry! Was Nemo swimming one-handed?
My hon. Friend asks a good question about the issue of coral and other states’ involvement. At all the international meetings I went to in 2024, which was my first year in post, people looked to the UK for our leadership on these UN conventions, particularly given the lack of leadership and withdrawal by other large players in the United Nations. We have been encouraged and exhorted to do that, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on treaties, so the actual treaty could not be DEFRA legislation. We found a spot to bring in the treaty in our second year, but I am sure it will receive great acclaim. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is soon to attend a conference in Kenya at which this SI and the further movement towards ratification will be warmly welcomed. There is also a Commonwealth summit to look at the ocean, as so much of our Commonwealth is affected and is marine facing or marine vulnerable.
The statutory instrument aims to strike the right balance, providing safeguards to protect the marine environment and meet BBNJ requirements, while avoiding disproportionate or unnecessary regulation. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of the marine environment and the need for effective and appropriate regulation of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Dr Hudson
I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. I recognise that there are concerns about specified cable activity remaining exempt from regulation, but that is based on evidence provided in our consultation responses and discussions with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I reassure hon. Members that, as a result of that evidence and those discussions, we consider cable-related activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction to be of sufficiently low impact as to fall below the threshold, which is why we are maintaining the current cabling exemption. However, science and industry are evolving in this area, so we are working on it. In the consultation, which we held jointly with the Scottish Government and which was open for four weeks in November 2025, we had only 22 responses from industry research organisations, environmental non-government organisations, consultants and consultancies, public bodies and DEFRA arms-length bodies, which shows that this is quite a niche area.
Eighty-nine other states have now ratified the BBNJ treaty and 145 states have signed it, so there is huge international support. We have only one ocean; although we may call it different things in different places, it is the mantle that wraps around the globe. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest says, we are often blind to the treasures that it holds in its deeps, whether that is the glorious seaweed baths on the Atlantic coast, or the next cure for an ailment or disease. Our ocean is vital to so many of our industries and provides proteins for billions of people, so it is important that we protect it for the future. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-strained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports: the main five London airports as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester. The regulations are deemed necessary in the context of the ongoing conflict in the middle east, which continues to create disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector. The Government have therefore designed a slots hand-back measure for the summer and winter 2026 seasons that allows airlines to return a proportion of their slots without losing the right to the same slots the following year. The regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations.
The ongoing conflict in the middle east has created significant disruption to aviation. Airlines face longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and in some cases shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. Those developments remain unpredictable and continue to place pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are outside the control of airlines but nevertheless affect their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond effectively to known risks to their operations, and passengers could face last-minute cancellations and disruption at departure gates. The regulations respond directly to that uncertainty by providing limited, targeted flexibility while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The regulations allow airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the United Kingdom. Those are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times exceeds available capacity. Airlines will be able to hand back slots without losing their historical entitlement to those same slots in the following equivalent season.
The 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under the regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance: it provides airlines with flexibility to adjust schedules in response to the impacts of the conflict in the middle east, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is strictly time-limited.
The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland, and there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. It raised some comments that I will briefly address. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views were received. Although many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers therefore concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.
On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures. Where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or re-routing. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations, but this measure addresses that gap.
On the final points that were raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. The powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Replacement powers are being sought through the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill and any future use will depend on prevailing circumstances.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulation informally through the pre-laying scrutiny period. It will be considered by the Committee this Wednesday, and we are not expecting concerns to be raised.
The policy intent behind the measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. The regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights and remove the pressure to operate services purely to retain slots. They also help to protect connectivity, as airport slots underpin route networks built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historical rights despite temporary disruption ensures that those connections can be restored when conditions stabilise. Finally, they support the financial stability of airlines. Without these measures, airlines could be forced to operate loss-making flights or risk losing valuable slots, neither of which would be beneficial for the sector or for passengers. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of what is essentially a pickle of the Government’s own making. We will not divide on the regulations because we recognise that there is a real problem that has to be solved. But rather than fiddling around with emergency statutory instruments to plug a gap, the real problem is the Government’s running down of the domestic energy sector and our ability to refine jet-grade oil and supply our airline industry.
We need to rejuvenate our energy sector, encouraging the investment and business conditions that will allow refineries to reopen. That is essential to manage the challenges posed by fuel shortages—I am thinking of Stanlow, Fawley, Pembroke and others. We have the ability to refine jet fuel in this country; we just need to expand it. The problem with the Government’s other policies on energy is that they are making it so expensive to operate energy-intensive businesses such as oil refining in this country that the industry has voted with its feet and left in a large percentage. We do not actually need less jet fuel than before the conflict in the middle east began. In fact, the spiralling cost of the carbon tax has meant that refineries are struggling to remain open. That will only increase our reliance on imports and make us vulnerable to geopolitical concerns around the strait of Hormuz.
If we want to support our oil refining sector, we must start by removing the additional costs, such as the carbon tax, while backing our North sea oil and gas industry to support the energy ecosystem that we rely on. That includes licences for new exploration and drilling. However, we have seen little evidence of that—in fact, quite the opposite in the case of the North sea, with the Government’s baffling legislative proposal on new licences.
Given the Government’s lack of commitment to tackling the fundamental issue, they have turned to these regulations, which have had the unfortunate consequence of dividing the opinions of airlines and airports. While airlines broadly support the proposals, we should acknowledge—as I hope the Minister will—the ongoing and significant concerns of airports. Those concerns have increased over the near two years of this Government’s rule, because of their mix of anti-business mandates and enormous increases to business rates, which have imposed significant costs on airports, even if they have managed to avoid the preposterous increases that were originally set out. The increases will create further challenges for regional airports, which face some of the steepest charges. We only have to look at Heathrow, which had an initial proposal of a 350% increase in its business rates.
The combination of measures has made airports wary, so it is unsurprising that they have concerns about the concept of an increased number of flights being cancelled under a new regime, with the cost of those empty slots being borne by the airports. I understand that this goes to the winter of 2027, though I think the Minister said June 2026. I may have misheard him, so perhaps he could clarify—
Jerome Mayhew
If we could have a bit more clarity on that, I would be grateful.
The director of the Airports Council International Europe went so far as to say:
“The UK Government is effectively handing airlines a carte blanche to cut services and not deliver their schedules, leaving passengers, communities and airports to bear the full brunt.”
Although I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, that is a strong argument and deserves a direct response from the Minister about how he will maintain the balance through these regulations.
We all appreciate the importance of airport slot alleviation, particularly if there are significant fuel shortages, so I will not oppose the regulations today. Nevertheless, the proposals have been introduced in such a way that I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a few of the issues. That includes whether there are sufficient protections for travellers under the 14-day window, and whether he is confident that the system will work as intended and we will not see people’s holidays more disrupted than necessary over the summer period. In addition, I would be interested in hearing his rationale for extending the period into the winter when the peak period for flights is during the summer. Would it have been feasible to make changes at a later date, particularly if the Government get around to passing their Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill in a more timely manner than they appear to be doing at the moment?
Ultimately, the Government are right to ensure that there is flexibility when there is a crisis, but we have been repeatedly told that there is not a jet fuel shortage. That is always liable to change, but those comments raise fair questions from the sector about the appropriateness of the regulations that the Government propose. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the concerns of airports, and, frankly, my concerns about the risk posed to the travelling public, so that there can be clarity about the necessity of these measures beyond the existing alleviation rules.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I think it is helpful to look at the consultation responses from airlines and airports when changes were announced. Only two out of 38 airlines opposed the changes, whereas airports were unanimously opposed to the measures. Airlines argued that, without a hand-back mechanism, they would not be able to adjust their schedules early enough to provide passengers with meaningful notice, even where known risks to operations existed. Airlines also considered the 10% limit on hand-backs too low and pushed to increase that to 20%-plus; generally speaking, we support the restriction to 10%, to reduce the potential impact on consumers.
Airport respondents opposed the proposal; they were not against alleviation in principle but against the hand-back mechanism specifically. They argued that the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions are sufficient to enable cancellations where operational constraints, including fuel shortages, arise. For instance, JNUS has already come into effect, providing slot alleviation to operators because of airport and airspace closures from the disruption in the middle east.
It is worth noting that, given that there is no fuel shortage now and none is expected according to Government data and airline bosses, this approach risks appearing to be unjustified, disproportionate and not entirely required, given that the measures in place are already helping with those issues. There is a risk that, instead of ensuring reliable services as stated, it could undermine consumer confidence and growth and investment opportunities.
The Liberal Democrats recognise that flexibility during this tumultuous period is important; as we have seen, events can move very quickly in the middle east. We want to protect the long-term financial sustainability of the airline sector. We do not want airlines using slots for empty or near-empty ghost flights, where demand is insufficient, in order to maintain the historical rights to slots, but these changes would result in flight cancellations with little notice, with huge disruption to consumers.
The proposal to allow hand-backs with as little as 14 days’ notice is contrary to the stated aim of preventing disruptive late cancellations, and it is unnecessary given that JNUS can be used at this late stage if a genuine fuel shortage occurs. In a cost of living crisis, with flight prices already through the roof, customers will be forced to spend more money on replacement flights at the last minute or lose money on hotels or onward travel.
It is also the case that 14 days’ notice is too short a period for airports and other users to make effective use of the vacated slots, as airports typically need six weeks’ notice to reallocate slots commercially. This means that we would likely have unused slots, which reduces income to airports and reduces investment in passenger and freight infrastructure.
Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK. That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation.
Will the Government commit to formally monitoring hand-backs under the flexibility offered by this legislation in order to ensure that they are the result of genuine fuel shortages, are undertaken in a timely manner and are not being abused? I also echo the concerns of the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, about the impact on consumers. I will be voting against the draft regulations.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for their remarks. I will deal with each point they raised in turn.
First, on the question about timing asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I confirm that the slot alleviation measures will be extended to winter 2026. I find his link to broader questions on the refining sector admirably creative, but I am not sure that they have a direct bearing on the measures that we are considering. Our domestic refineries are still able to produce kerosene and jet fuel to a solid and viable extent. I remind him that we are not passing these measures directly in response to a shortage of jet fuel, but to pre-empt any future shortages that may arise, even though we believe that the supply is currently as it should be.
I also remind the hon. Member that we implemented a similar pre-emptive framework during the covid-19 pandemic to deal with similar disruption. This is a measured approach to be able to manage any potential fluctuations in supply as they occur.
The hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Sutton and Cheam are right to point to the concerns raised by airports through the consultation and to consumer protections for the travelling public. I will address both of those points together. We very much recognise airports’ concerns about the potential impacts. That is why these measures are strictly temporary, limited in scope and affect only a small proportion of slots—up to 10%.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed to the fact that a lot of airlines thought that the figure should be higher. The Government took a different view to make sure that the impact on the airports sector is contained.
Allowing these regulations to reallocate slots that are handed back ensures that airport capacity is not wasted. That provides flexibility for airlines while ensuring that we have efficient use of airport infrastructure. We believe that 10% strikes the right balance.
On passenger protections, airlines are required to provide passengers with at least 14 days’ notice of any flight cancellations, but that is not the intention of this policy. It is designed so that airlines have a longer lead-in time to be able to see where potential disruption might lie, and to be able to reallocate those slots efficiently to protect the travelling public and ultimately give them more security and better forewarning about disruption, where it may occur.
Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, passengers are entitled to a choice between a full refund or being re-routed under comparable transport conditions to their final destination at no extra cost.
The shadow Minister asked why winter, and why the measures do not extend just to the summer. There is an important point about using the retained EU law functions that we have now to ensure that we have a long-term approach to managing disruption across the rest of the year. As he pointed out, measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will provide us with greater flexibility on slot reform, which we can use going forward.
On the Lib Dem spokesperson’s points on JNUS—I have never said JNUS out loud before—the justified non-utilisation of slots is triggered when a fuel shortage is materially occurring. The regulations give us a forward look that allows us to build in contingencies well in advance, and not just when a fuel shortage reaches its bite point. That is why a longer-term approach is necessary, but he is right to hold my feet to the fire.
Luke Taylor
There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public.
The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument.
Question put.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 April. They make several minor and technical amendments to improve the operational efficiency of the contracts for difference scheme during the assessment of applications. Subject to the will of Parliament, the Government intend to introduce those targeted and practical measures in time for allocation round 8, which opens on 20 July.
For the interest of Committee members, the CfD scheme is the Government’s flagship policy for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation in Great Britain. CfDs are awarded through annual competitive auctions, with the lowest-priced bids being successful. In March, in response to events in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary outlined a package of measures to go further and faster on clean power, including bringing forward the opening of AR8 to July to provide certainty for clean energy investors.
The most recent allocation round, AR7, alone secured 14.7 GW of clean, home-grown generating capacity across 201 new projects. AR7 built on the success of AR6—out in September 2024—which secured more than 7 GW of renewable capacity across Great Britain. AR7 was the most successful renewables auction in European history. The reforms we introduced for AR7 boosted competition and investor confidence, and secured renewable capacity at strike prices 40% lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas power plant. Such achievements show how the CfD scheme—our key path to deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030—strengthens Britain’s energy security.
The regulations that govern the scheme are kept under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The draft regulations will make the following three targeted amendments to improve the future operation of the scheme. First, they will enable the National Energy System Operator to correct certain types of error it makes during the assessment of applications by issuing new or amended qualification decisions, where evidence supports that. NESO, in its role as the CfD delivery body, assesses applications against the eligibility criteria and determines whether applicants qualify to participate in the competitive allocation process. As the CfD scheme has grown in popularity, the volume of applications has increased significantly, with several hundred submitted in recent allocation rounds. Eligibility checks are always robust, but larger numbers of applications increase the risk of errors in assessment decisions. This amendment will ensure greater consistency and fairness in how the eligibility requirements are applied.
Secondly, the draft regulations will enable NESO to consider additional information or documentary evidence submitted by applicants when examining appeals from non-qualification decisions. That change will help to avoid projects being disqualified for minor or trivial omissions from their applications. It should streamline the process and ultimately increase the number of participants in the auction, which will help us by driving greater competition and better value for money for bill payers.
Thirdly, the regulations clarify how NESO is to treat applications where eligibility has not yet been decided by the point at which the regulations require NESO to proceed with the auction. In the light of operational experience from AR7, this amendment will remove some ambiguity in existing regulations.
Finally, the draft regulations provide for procedures or information relating to the implementation of several of the measures that I have just described to be set out in the contract allocation framework—a statutory document that contains the eligibility criteria and rules governing how NESO must allocate CfDs in an allocation round. The Government published a draft of the framework setting out the proposed requirements for AR8 on 1 June, and invited stakeholder views. The final version will be published in early July, before the round opens to applications.
These amendments received strong stakeholder support in a recent public consultation, which showed broad recognition that the changes will improve the experience of applicants during the assessment process, support more effective competition and secure better value for money for consumers. This approach reflects our continued close engagement with industry in the development of the CfD scheme. By building on the foundations that we laid in AR7, the draft regulations will strengthen the procedures and simplify the operation of the scheme, which will drive progress towards clean power by 2030, while of course helping us in our No. 1 mission of securing value for money for bill payers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The lens through which we must view any legislation on contracts for difference, including the draft regulations before us, is one that asks: what do contracts for difference mean for all our constituents who ultimately pay the energy bills?
The Opposition oppose forcing families and businesses to pay even more money to subsidise wind and solar developers, which I am afraid is precisely what happened in the last allocation round for contracts for difference, which the draft regulations amend. My Conservative colleagues and I warned Ministers for months that wind and solar developers would take advantage of the Government’s blind commitment to building more clean power, regardless—I repeat, regardless—of the cost. What was the result? Prices that were far higher than those agreed in the previous allocation round, higher than the average cost of electricity the year before, and the highest in over a decade.
The Government are locking in uncompetitive electricity prices for decades to come. Britain already has the highest electricity prices in the world, and it is now clear that it is the cost of the excess capacity, curtailment, batteries, storage systems and interconnectors, as well as the imports of gas needed to offset the intermittency of renewables and the subsidies that developers are extracting to pay for this, that are driving up prices in the long term. It is a reality that seemingly everyone but the Government have come to accept, with energy bosses giving a pointed warning to Parliament last year that the price of electricity could be higher in 2030 than it is now even if gas were free, because of these rising network and policy costs.
If the Government believe that their policy will lower energy bills in the long term, can the Minister promise that the maximum strike prices agreed in allocation round 8 will be lower than the price of gas-powered electricity last year, and lower than the strike prices agreed in previous allocation rounds? If the Minister cannot answer those straightforward questions, how can the Government continue to claim that their policy is lowering the cost of energy, when the available evidence suggests otherwise?
Today’s draft regulations may involve just a number of minor technical amendments, and His Majesty’s official Opposition will not divide the Committee today, but the bigger picture to which the draft regulations speak should be of concern of all members of the Committee, and all Members of the wider House.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I will leave the Minister to respond to all the inaccuracies in the shadow Minister’s speech. The purpose of the draft regulations is not to alter the underlying policy objectives of the CfD scheme but to improve the administration and operation of the allocation process. As the number of applications has increased significantly in recent allocation rounds, the complexity of assessing those applications has also grown.
The three principal changes introduced by the draft regulations are all positive. Allowing NESO to correct certain administrative errors that it may make during the assessment of an application should reduce the risk of projects being incorrectly assessed due to procedural mistakes. Permitting NESO to consider additional documentary evidence or information when reviewing first-stage appeals from applicants whose projects have initially been deemed to be non-qualifying should ensure that decisions are based on the fullest possible information and that applicants are treated fairly. Finally, the draft regulations clarify how pending applications should be treated where eligibility decisions remain outstanding at the point at which the allocation process must move forward. This follows operational experience from allocation round 7 and provides greater certainty for future rounds.
The Liberal Democrats support reforms that strengthen and improve the operation of the CfD scheme and accelerate the transition to cleaner and cheaper renewable energy. We will continue to support the expansion of fixed-price renewable contracts to break the link between electricity prices and gas prices, but although we support the draft regulations, we believe that further reforms of the CfD framework should be considered, including extending the lifetime of CfD contracts from 15 to 25 years, and moving all older renewables obligation contracts on to the CfD scheme.
Michael Shanks
I welcome the comments of both hon. Gentlemen, in particular those of the hon. Member for West Dorset, who spoke to the actual draft regulations. I thank him for his support. I also thank the official Opposition for their support for all that we do in energy policy, or so it seemed from the speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire.
The hon. Member for West Dorset spoke about increasing the CfD lifetime, but we did extend the CfD from 15 to 20 years. We recognised the impact on the cost of investment, which brought down—or played a part in bringing down—some of the bid prices into the auction. We will maintain those changes into AR8 before we open the round.
On the more general points that were made, I think that there is a moment here to reflect. AR7 was the most successful renewables auction that we have ever had. Crucially, however, it was an auction that brought in prices 40% lower than those for building and operating new gas. That was before the situation in the middle east arose. I do not have the actual figure for what the difference would be now, but we can all safely assume that with the price of gas where it is today, it would be a significantly higher saving now than it was then.
That is the truth of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire saying that he opposes forcing families to pay more; what he is proposing is to force families to pay for gas, which is significantly higher in price right now, and is often much higher. He is gambling that at some point in the future gas prices might come down, so everything will be okay. We are determined not to drive forward our energy system in that way. From an energy security point of view, there has never been a clearer argument than what we are facing right now. Only four years ago, we faced exactly the same question with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have to learn the right lessons, not continue to make the same mistakes.
The last point that I would make—with your patience, Mr Stringer, because none of this is in the draft regulations—is on curtailment and storage. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the cost of building the grid, but as much as I would love to take credit for this Government for building the renewables projects that are generating clean power in this country, the truth is that most of them were built under the previous Conservative Government. I give the Conservatives credit for that, even if they do not wish to give it to themselves. What they did not do, however, was build the grid to connect those projects up. We were left with generation right across the country and a grid that was completely out of phase.
A lesson for us to learn from the 14 years of Conservative Government is to build the grid to connect the clean power to households, to connect the economic growth opportunities that we need badly, and to get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster as fast as possible, so that we are not forcing families to pay sky-high prices for gas, which we can never control. That is what the draft regulations help us to achieve, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Water Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered water safety.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister for attending to hear the points to be made. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety, and I acknowledge the support and co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who has been campaigning with me on this issue.
The recent heatwave took many of us to the most beautiful spots in our country: rivers, beaches and lakes. Over that May bank holiday and half-term, many sought to enjoy the unusual weather. As we know, what started as days to enjoy with fun in the sunshine, has since been overshadowed by the unprecedented tragedy of new fewer than 19 deaths. I hope this debate provides a timely opportunity to explore the issues we must firmly grip: water safety education, policy interventions, public awareness campaigns, access to swimming and lifesaving skills, and many other actions that Government can and must take, alongside local authorities, emergency services and water operators, to prevent drownings.
I turn first and most importantly to the catalyst for today’s debate. Each year, on average, drowning claims the lives of more than 600 people in the UK. That is nearly 12 people every week of every year. Hon. Members who have seen such tragedies in their constituencies will know that each one is a beloved family member, friend or colleague. Each one mattered profoundly to those around them, and their deaths have caused deep pain to those left behind. Too many of them are children: 196 children drowned in open water in the past six years alone. That is a classroom full of children every year.
What we saw during the recent heatwave was particularly shocking. Many welcomed the early summer weather and went out, across the country, to make the most of it. We now know that in just over a week, 19 people were confirmed dead, the vast majority—13—of them children.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the subject of young children, many of them school age, there was a tragedy close to my constituency in August 2022, when two teenagers drowned. That is an example of what the hon. Member is outlining having happened recently across England. Does he agree that we need to educate young people about the real dangers that exist, even when they think there are none?
Darren Paffey
The hon. Member is absolutely right and makes an important point. Following a debate during drowning prevention week last year, I was pleased that it was confirmed that water safety education, including the Royal Life Saving Society’s water safety code, would be added to the national curriculum. We need to see the effect of that in time.
I hope that this will be a pivotal moment for our country to act and do more to prevent such tragedies. Those who died recently are the catalysts for today’s debate, and their names deserve to be heard in Parliament. They are: Declan Sawyer, aged just 15; Reco Puttock, 13 years old; Lillianna Tomlinson, 17 years old; Muhammad Secka, who was just 16; Phil Crow, 68 years old; Junior Slater, 12; David Tita Junior, 17; Rushabh Patel, 28 years old; Samuel Murphy, aged 14; Baltazar L’Quy, 14; Panashe Muchenje, 19 years old; Charlie Noble, 16; Chiedza Nyanjowa, 15 years old; Mackenzie Swift, the youngest at just 11 years old; Greg Howes, 44; George Cuckoo, 15; Palwasha Akbar, 13; and two women who have not yet been named, one aged 60 in Thornton-Cleveleys in Lancashire and another aged 72 who died in West Angle Bay beach in Pembrokeshire. We mourn their tragic loss here. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in sending our deepest condolences to their families and friends, who have been left heartbroken by their deaths. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Now we must act. It is already devastating enough that in an average year about 30 children might drown in open water in the UK, but 13 in one week? What happened? In many cases, we may never fully know. We do know that, understandably, in the intense heat, it is a pleasure to go for a swim, go out with friends, take a picnic, have a laugh and try to cool down. But we also know, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, that there are risks—hidden risks and risks that are not necessarily well known—that could have contributed to those tragedies.
Even when the air temperature is hot—we got up to 34° in parts of the country that week—water temperatures, particularly inland, open water, are still very cold, especially this early in the year. When someone jumps innocently and enthusiastically into the water, seeking relief from the heat, their body can experience cold water shock, which can cause an involuntary gasp, drawing water straight into the lungs. It can paralyse the muscles and stop the heart. Even the strongest swimmer has seconds, not minutes, to react. It is not just the physical response; it is the lack of knowledge of what to do when they get into difficulty that could have led to such an unprecedented number of drownings during that week.
Joe Abbess from my Southampton Itchen constituency drowned three years ago. He was a strong swimmer, a fit and healthy 17-year-old, swimming in a designated area of Bournemouth beach, but he was caught in a very intense and sudden rip current. His mum Vanessa, who has become an incredible campaigner on water safety since, has said that training and educating people so that they know what they might do in those circumstances can make all the difference.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The story the hon. Gentleman tells of his constituent echoes that of mine. In 2023, Ryan went into the sea with his friend, and they both got caught in a riptide. Ryan’s friend knew what to do in that situation—he knew to float—but Ryan did not. He was not discovered until four days later. His mum, Ren, has become a passionate advocate for making sure we teach young people not just how to swim, but what to do in emergency situations and in open water. She tours schools locally, teaching young people about the dangers of swimming even in designated bathing areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the strength that these families often show in the face of absolute tragedy is an incredible testament to their bravery?
Darren Paffey
I am so sorry to hear about that situation. I commend Ren and the many other parents who go far beyond any strength I could ever muster, were this to happen to my family. The hon. Lady is right that they are the most powerful advocates, and we must do more to ensure their voices are heard.
In Vanessa’s words,
“We live on an island; people should know the dangers. You wouldn’t cross the road without thinking about it—don’t enter the sea”—
or the river or the lake—
“without thinking about it.”
We also know that when the weather gets better, drownings sadly increase. With summer coming—temperatures are forecast to get up to 29° again this weekend—I urge the Government, all Members here and everyone watching this debate to engage with Drowning Prevention Week next week, and to tell the stories of what can go wrong and how to be safe in the summer.
Summer comes every year—it is not a surprise to us—but we have to be better prepared for what is guaranteed to happen. There are bound to be risks and the question whether individuals know what to do should not be a lottery.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. He is right; summer comes around every year. West Dorset is home to the Jurassic coast—a major tourist attraction—and our population increases by 40% over the summer months. Despite the inter-agency working of Dorset police, Dorset fire service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, there is no mechanism in the Government funding formula to recognise that seasonal surge in population. It puts huge strain on the emergency services and volunteers who respond to the kinds of incidents that the hon. Member rightly highlights.
Darren Paffey
The hon. Gentleman raises some important points about the gaps that still exist in the jigsaw of different services, support and funding; I will return to that later.
The Royal Life Saving Society is producing a report on the last six years of child drowning deaths data, which will be released next week, Drowning Prevention Week, at our APPG meeting. I encourage everyone to look at that report; it will help us to learn the lessons that we need to.
The Government must play their role in preventing further drownings. I recognise the Government’s decision to include water safety in the relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer. I was grateful that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), visited to meet campaigners, including Vanessa. However, as people who spend our time creating laws and guidance, we know that guidance without some sort of enforcement or support is an aspiration, not a policy.
Will the Minister and the Government accept and recognise that drowning is a preventable public health issue? It kills more than 600 people in the UK every year. It disproportionately effects children. It is demonstrably preventable.
Maya Ellis
A few weeks ago, 12-year-old Junior Slater tragically drowned in the River Ribble in the heart of my constituency. We will cover many things to prevent such senseless losses in this debate, but what struck me most in the village on the day that it happened was the hundreds of young people who were there from surrounding towns looking for something nice to do on a sunny day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent tragic deaths such as Junior’s, we need to ensure that there is also funding for places where young people can go and enjoy the outdoors safely, and will he join me in sending best wishes to the Slater family ahead of Junior’s funeral this Thursday?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before Mr Paffey replies, I should tell all Members that it is rude to join during a speech and then ask a question first thing. It is not the etiquette of the House. Please come at the start of the debate in future.
Darren Paffey
I absolutely share my condolences with Junior’s family. I cannot imagine what they will be feeling this week, but I hope this debate will bring forward ideas on how we can prevent drownings.
On the suggestion that my hon. Friend made about providing more for our young people to do, it is partly about that, but it also about having points of contact in addition to school, the family and public campaigns. Youth services, youth engagement and more activities will allow us to perhaps better educate our young people of the risks of drowning and how to deal with the other pressures that they face. By every measure that the NHS uses to prioritise public health action—scale, preventability, health inequalities—drowning prevention belongs on that list.
My second ask is that we take water safety as a priority at the heart of Government. The National Water Safety Forum is preparing to publish updated national drowning prevention strategies in the coming month, but there is no single lead for co-ordinating that work within the Government. Water safety is fragmented across multiple Departments and does not have a single accountable Minister in the same way as, for example, flooding or fire prevention. Ministerial responsibility for water safety and drowning prevention could be added more explicitly into existing roles, or covered by creating a new ministerial brief altogether.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding today. This is not about her as an individual, because I know that she is deeply committed to these issues—but any occupant of her role would not have specific responsibility for water safety. I therefore ask the Government to consider that proposal urgently. One of the new—or the current—Minister’s first tasks should be to convene an urgent, cross-Government roundtable this month, or certainly before the school summer holidays. I know that the National Water Safety Forum and the Royal Life Saving Society have written to the Prime Minister, and I ask the Minister to speak to No. 10 so that we get a swift response to their call.
My third ask is that we give our fire and rescue services in England a statutory responsibility for responding to water rescue emergencies. We all know that they are likely to be the ones who come out to such a 999 call, but it is not their statutory responsibility. We are asking our firefighters, who are already in the water saving lives, to do that job without giving them all the tools. That must change.
My fourth and final ask is for a public awareness campaign. We need one now. Our media, social media, schools, colleges, universities, councils, charities, landowners and water companies must all get behind it before another summer of drownings hits the country. We also need a year-round public awareness and education campaign. I will not repeat the valid points that others have made on that; we can all see the value that it would bring. I welcome the Daily Mirror’s campaign, which I am sure we will hear more about in this debate, and the way that it is bringing this issue to the public’s attention.
I want to speak directly to anyone watching the debate, because the words of the campaigns that the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and others have all got behind could save a life this summer: “If someone gets into difficulty in the water, ‘Float to Live’. Fight your instinct to panic and thrash about. The advice is to roll on to your back and float—it buys you time. If you see someone else in trouble, the advice is ‘Phone, Float, Throw’: phone 999, shout to the person in the water to float, help them to stay calm and throw them anything that might help them to float—a rope, a jacket or anything else that is buoyant. ‘Float to Live’ and ‘Phone, Float, Throw’—please remember those six words this summer.”
In conclusion, I come back to the 19 victims of drowning in just one terrible week in this country. Among the many, I come back to Mackenzie Swift, who was just 11 and the youngest in that spate of drownings—younger than two of my children, and younger than the children and grandchildren of many hon. Members. The summer is just beginning. If we leave this Chamber today without a clear plan to act, we will face another debate like this one and we will read out more names. I do not want that. I know that the Minister does not want that. No one wants that. Let us agree today that drowning is preventable. The tools exist, but action must now follow.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for his very thoughtful words. One of the young women he talked about, Palwasha Akbar, was 13, from the Bronte Girls’ secondary school in Bradford, and she died in Burnsall in my constituency. I pay tribute to her family and friends, who have spoken so eloquently about her. She died in more or less the same spot as Azaz Mohmed Chanda from Blackburn in 2024; I also put on record my thoughts for his family. In that case, there was an investigation and a coroner’s report, and it was a case of misadventure.
I support all the hon. Member’s comments about education, and the specific warnings he gave to people who are swimming in open water. The “Lonely Water” campaign of the early 1970s was very effective. I have certainly had constituents write in to ask me to represent that campaign and the stark truths it laid out.
I want to talk briefly about public bodies. The Minister has been given a series of asks by the hon. Member. I represent a large part of the Yorkshire Dales national park, which has been responsible for, rightly, promoting the countryside to ethnic minorities in Bradford and the surrounding area, and has received quite a lot of money to do so. Following the death last week, I have become increasingly concerned about an issue that has been coming up in quite a lot of the recent Government reports of grey areas between public bodies. Public bodies not meeting their responsibilities or duties is very present with national parks. They have a duty to promote themselves, but also to protect local communities, and they have duties on safety.
What came out regarding the last bank holiday weekend and Eid was that, at an operational level, the Yorkshire Dales national park had not thought about the deployment of personnel in hotspots such as Burnsall in any way that I could see, and had not really thought through its responsibility for safety. That responsibility for safety is obviously as an access authority—they are often not landowners. For the Minister’s awareness, at the weekend I looked through almost all the recent minutes, chief executive reports and risk registers, and never has any issue of water safety come up in any of those writings or meetings that I could see. When there have been two of these deaths at the same spot in the last two years, that cannot be right.
I urge the Minister to listen to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, but I also urge her to use whatever powers she has to speak to national parks that have large amounts of water and ask them to fulfil their duties on the safety of communities. We have heard that there are huge volumes of cars and people at peak times. National parks must now take responsibility for the volume of people they have promoted their area to and encouraged to come and visit, and must look at their duties on safety.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. What we have heard is heartbreaking. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for the work she has done over many years in our city. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).
First and foremost, the Daily Mirror has done fantastic work on the Save Lives for Sam campaign, and the simple message: “Float to Live”. Sam was just 16 when he passed away in Rotherham, and his dad has shown extraordinary courage. Let me get out of the starting blocks by making a simple request of my hon. Friend the Minister: I would really welcome the Government thinking about whether the upcoming clean water Bill could be the most proximate legislative vehicle to introduce Sam’s law—a relatively simple fix that involves mandating equipment at some of these sites.
I also join those who paid tribute to Palwasha Akbar, who tragically died after going missing in the River Wharfe in North Yorkshire. No parent should have to go through that. As a dad to two young boys, I cannot imagine what it must be like to receive that knock at the door.
I express my gratitude to the emergency services and search and rescue in York. Whether they are patrolling the Ouse late at night or on the hottest day of the year, they are there when we need them the most. In particular, I am grateful to York Rescue Boat, a charity established in 2014 to protect lives on the Rivers Ouse and Foss. It takes a proactive approach to water safety by doing things like going on patrol every weekend, helping to keep residents, and of course visitors to our wonderful city, safe, but from speaking to its volunteers, a clear picture emerges: much of what they deal with is preventable.
We should be honest about something from the start: water safety has become somewhat of a class issue. I am fortunate that I can afford to take my lovely boys swimming regularly and pay for swimming lessons to make sure that they build confidence in the water right from the start of their life, but too many families cannot. Too many children are growing up without access to the very skills that could one day save their life.
Years of austerity, I am sure, have something to do with how access has been hollowed out to those essential services. Water tragedies are not just accidents; they are preventable. Swimming might be compulsory in the curriculum, but long waiting lists for lessons and the closure of pools means that that promise is too often not delivered. Too often, we talk about water safety only after a life has been lost. We really need to explore that.
I want to tell a brief story of my own. My little boy Robin, as Members will know, means the world to me. One day we were in the pool. He was splashing around, a metre and a half away from me, under my watchful eye. He was extremely close, with his float jacket on. For a split second, his face went under the water—a split second of panic. That shock is something a parent will always remember. Of course, I grabbed him, got him out of the pool and built his confidence back up. As parents, I am sure we have all had those feelings, whether at the pool, the beach or even a bath time—even when we are there watching, a metre away, ready to step in—but there will be a time when our children leave home and we cannot be there for them, just a metre away.
We teach the green cross code, stranger danger, and fire and road safety as standard yet, although water is one of the biggest killers of children, water safety is too often an afterthought. It is a compulsory part of the physical education curriculum; every child, in theory, should leave primary school able to swim 25 metres. One in three, though, unfortunately cannot. We must do more for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and ensure that children with disabilities and additional needs receive extra support in learning basic lifesaving skills.
Although it is very easy for politicians to stand up in the House of Commons and say that things should be free or expanded, I really think we need to talk about free swimming lessons for kids in deprived areas of this country. We must go beyond speaking about the curriculum. The House has legislated for seat belts, fire alarms and road crossings. As I say, it is time for Sam’s law too.
In York, we know that this is a particularly acute issue. We teach children about the history of the Minster, the city walls and the railway, but not enough about how to survive in the River Ouse. We should embed swimming and water awareness at a much earlier stage. I want to say something about us being a university city, shaped by our rivers. I did part of my graduate studies in the United States. American universities incorporate water safety in their undergraduate curricula, so I think universities have to do more. I would like to use this moment to open a conversation with Universities UK on that. In Parliament, we often put a lot of responsibility on primary school teachers, but we should look at what universities can do.
Above all, we must make sure that every child, regardless of background and household income, leaves school able to swim and to understand water safety. Is it so much to ask, in a society as rich as ours, that we have kids who can swim?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for highlighting this issue at such a timely moment as we begin—hopefully—to enjoy the better weather and are seeing preventable deaths, particularly of young people, in our waters. It saddens us all greatly when we hear of the unnecessary loss of life.
As we look to the summer, we look for those days of summer fun. I grew up in a different time, but I learned to swim at school, and that probably gave me an advantage. Our school had swimming classes and everybody learned to swim, and it did not do us any harm. I am reminded of the time that I went on holiday to Florida and the three boys were small—aged eight, six and four. We arrived at the villa and they were all excited to be getting into the pool, as we always are when the sun is shining. The youngest boy just walked straight on to the water. I do not know what he thought he was going to do, but he certainly was not going to walk on it. The second boy shouted to him, “Swim, Luke, swim!” but Luke was not swimming anywhere, so I dived into the pool and pulled him out. There is danger in water, wherever it may be—even in swimming pools and ponds. My five-and-a-half-year-old grandchild learned to swim this year in Portugal. The Minister does not have responsibility for education, but she will understand, as we all do, that it is really important that we all learn to swim.
My summer holidays were spent with my friends, jumping into the quarry and enjoying the cool water on a sticky day. I can probably go back further than just about anybody in the Chamber—my loss of hair and wrinkles are an indication of that. Times have changed, but the joy of cooling off and splashing with friends has remained. We would have jumped into the quarry and off the harbour at Ballywalter, down where we lived when we were younger. I am old enough to remember depth charges: you curled yourself into a ball, jumped into the water and the water splashed everywhere. It was part of the youthful exuberance that we had. We were never alone; we always had friends with us, and maybe that was one of the things that made it all right.
However, the danger appears to have been enhanced, and those simple pleasures can have deadly results. My heart goes out to every family feeling the pain of the recent losses in water. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen read out the names of those who have died. That was a very poignant moment. It focused our attention on where we need to be, and we thank him for doing it, even though it was hard to comprehend the massive loss of life. My prayers and thoughts are with all those families at this time.
In Northern Ireland, our emergency services and local authorities have been warning that open water sites have hidden life-threatening hazards. Disused quarries are exceptionally dangerous due to unpredictable depths, submerged machinery, sudden drop-offs and stagnant toxic water conditions. The water in quarries does not flow; it just gathers and gets toxic. The water might look refreshing, but jumping into it can have dire results. I understand the temptation to enjoy our beautiful local landscape when the sun comes out, but I cannot stress enough how dangerous unsupervised open water swimming can be.
Quarries, in particular, are death traps. Their water may look calm and inviting on the surface, but underneath lies intense cold that can cause immediate muscle paralysis and shock, even in the strongest swimmers. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen outlined the theory of floating in the water. That is very easy to say, but it is not easy for someone to realise that they can float, because panic sets in. Maybe one of the things that we need to be doing in schools is teaching people how to have that immediate reaction of letting themselves go completely still and float. That could save their life.
I went to the local press to urge parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risk of trespassing on industrial or abandoned sites, because peer pressure can often lead to tragic decisions. We have seen devastating tragedies across Northern Ireland in the past, and the UK mainland has seen more deaths of young boys and girls in the recent heatwave. It is devastating trying to understand the loss of life. I do not want to see one more local family heartbroken this summer. My plea is clear: “Please stick to designated supervised swimming areas, obey all the safety signage and look out for one another. A split-second decision to jump into a quarry is simply not worth your life. Enjoy the sun and water responsibly.”
More can and should be done. We should make a co-ordinated effort in schools to talk about the danger, and have a social media campaign and a television campaign about it. All those things are important, and they should come in March, April or May, as the summer months arrive and people’s minds turn to water, rather than in December—unless they are targeted at wild water swimmers, of course. I wouldn’t be swimming in December, that’s for sure.
All these tools must be utilised, because we saw 19 people lose their lives during the May heatwave in the UK, 13 of whom were children. The question must be asked: are we doing all that we can? The answer is that we could do more to prevent these deaths, and we must do more UK-wide. We need to ensure that, if residents spot individuals trespassing or swimming in prohibited high-risk areas, they report the activity to local authorities immediately to prevent potential accidents, and that there is an immediate response from a staffed police service that has the manpower to make a difference. In addition, lifesaving rubber rings should be provided in harbours and other potential swimming places. Water safety affects every constituency in the UK and the response must be greater, so that we never again have a month in which so many lives are lost and so many families are broken.
Those families who have lost loved ones are in my prayers—they are in all our prayers—but we must act to prevent more deaths, if at all possible. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response. She always gives us encouragement, which helps us all to deal with difficult situations. I again thank all the Members who have participated in the debate.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate.
My constituent Chiedza Nyanjowa was only 15 when she went to Formby beach on the bank holiday weekend with her 11-year-old cousin and her auntie—the beginning of this story is such a wholesome day out. Chiedza could not swim, so she and her cousin were playing safely on the sand with a beach volleyball. Unfortunately, the volleyball went into the sea and the girls went into the water to try to retrieve it. I think about how often I have told my own children: “Look after your things!” That was all the girls were trying to do; they were trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Chiedza did not make it back out of the sea in time.
Chiedza was, by all accounts, an absolutely lovely girl. She really liked helping others and her ambition was to grow up and become a nurse—an ambition that, sadly, will not be realised. That is a great loss to our community, because it sounds like she really was a deeply lovely child and a very loving Christian. She was also, by all accounts, fun; she liked taking selfies and doing all the things that teenage girls do. She liked to get flowers for her friends for their birthdays. She was extremely giving. She had recently won the local Rotary competition for cheffing.
Chiedza’s mother is the most incredible woman; meeting her was such an honour. She spoke to me at length about how grateful she was to both the off-duty doctor who spent a considerable period trying to rescue Chiedza from the water and the two off-duty nurses who spent a really long time doing their absolute best to revive Chiedza. I am sure she would also like me to say thank you to the members of New Life church; she is very grateful for their prayers for Chiedza.
Chiedza’s mother is just a great inspiration, and I feel very strongly that we must do everything we possibly can to prevent further such tragedies in our community. You cannot participate in the debate, Ms McVey, but I know that you have a lake in your constituency at which there are regularly tragedies of this kind, and I am sure that you would want us to assure everybody that we will work on a cross-party basis in Cheshire to look at this issue on a local level.
When we look at the statistics for child safety in water, we see that boys tend to die at twice the rate of girls, children in the most deprived communities die at twice the rate of more affluent children, and black children are three times more likely to die than white children. Luck should not determine whether children make it to adulthood; there are systemic problems here that we are failing to address. In my community, 39% of children with low family affluence can swim 25 metres, compared with 82% of children with high family affluence, so there is a systemic problem. Whether someone makes it to adulthood should not be an accident of birth, but at the moment it is.
We need to strengthen the school curriculum. The aim is that children should leave primary school able to swim, but a third of children cannot. It seems to me that even if a child can swim at the end of year 4, if they do not have the opportunity to practise that skill in the years that follow, the chances that they will still be able to swim 25 metres when they are 16 are negligible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen read out the terrible list of names of the many young people who died over the bank holiday weekend. Rather than regarding those as individual unfortunate accidents, we must look at what we need to change systemically when it comes to improving access to swimming for the wider community—including the availability and affordability of leisure centres and swimming lessons—and introducing greater consistency through the national curriculum so that children do not leave primary school unable to swim, and can still swim when they leave secondary school.
There are a lot of steps that we could take; I was interested to hear the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) to Sam’s law. We should absolutely look at opportunities in the clean water Bill. I know that Education Ministers have agreed to look at that, and I agree that we should be working cross-party and across Departments to ensure that we consistently prioritise our young people’s making it to adulthood.
Since I became an MP, it has shocked me to learn how many young people die by some sort of misadventure in my community. It is not only drownings, but road accidents and issues associated with mental health problems. We need a consistent approach across the country to ensuring that our young people make it to adulthood, because they are not doing so at the rate that they should be. Too many young people are dying in my community. I go to too many schools where I see whole cohorts of bereaved children. It is not just about the families of the children who have died, although it is horrific for them; it is also about the impact on all their peers.
My heart goes out so much to Chiedza’s cousin and the rest of her family. I really would like to impress upon the Minister that we must do something, systematically and urgently, about water safety. I know that she takes these issues very seriously. Given that we have so many avoidable deaths of young people, we must also look at ourselves as a society and consider whether we are committing our resources in the right places.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I am mindful of the time. It might have to be four minutes each to make sure that everybody gets in.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important and timely debate. My heart, warmest thoughts and love go out to all those families and friends who have felt the loss over the last few weeks, or in the past, of anyone who has drowned.
Sam, I made your dad, Simon, a promise—and I made it before I even opened my mouth to respond to him that first day I met him. I saw your eyes looking up at me from a photo that your dad had put into my hand, and I could hear the pain in his voice—a pain that no parent other than one who has lost a child could ever say they have felt. I could see in that moment how he had given every single ounce of himself, having lost you, to ensuring that no one else ever felt that heartache again. Sam, I promised your dad then—and I make that promise to you now—that you will save lives.
Sam was 15 years old, his GCSEs completed, and there was hot weather and the chance to go for some fun with friends in a reservoir. Sam never came home, and in the past few weeks, as we have heard, 19 people have not come home. Drowning kills more people per year in the UK than cyclists, fires, floods or knife crime, yet that fact does not seem to be recognised—certainly, it is not recognised enough. Well, not any more.
Minister, we have a national emergency. This is a burning platform, a ticking time bomb, that needs sorting before the next hot spell. We must react. The Government must act. We have to do something about this, and we can. We have heard that drowning is not inevitable, and the World Health Organisation recognises it as a preventable public health issue. The heartache can and must be stopped, and the Government must act to help to stop it.
I pay tribute to the Mirror for launching its Save Lives for Sam campaign, and many people have stepped forward to join the fight to Save Lives for Sam right now. Sam’s face is looking at me as I speak. I thank the Mirror for using its platform and for being there.
I also want to recognise the work of the Royal Life Saving Society UK, Swim England, the National Water Safety Forum, the Swimming Alliance, the Canal & River Trust, the National Fire Chiefs Council and all those who have been pushing for years, often long before the issue received the public attention it deserves. I also thank all the Olympians who have stepped forward to support the campaign, Rebecca Adlington, Tom Dean and Michael Gunning. Those are powerful voices out there right now, and I ask even more to come together to spread the message so that we can save lives.
Together, we are calling for the Government to launch an urgent public awareness campaign ahead of the summer holidays to target parents and children on relevant TV and social media platforms. We are calling for water companies and those in control of large, high-risk water bodies to do the right thing and provide the correct safety equipment through refreshed risk assessments. Ahead of the holidays, we are calling for compulsory lessons in schools on how to survive getting into difficulty in the water.
We are also calling for the Government to ensure that a single person has accountability for water safety, as the Governments in Wales and Scotland have, because drowning must be accepted as a preventable public health issue. Finally, and very importantly, we are calling for Sam’s law to be put in place—that was my private Member’s Water Safety Bill in the name of Sam. Contrary to what the Government say, it had full cross-party support. It would create a legal responsibility to provide, maintain and ensure easy and rapid access to safety equipment around reservoirs and water bodies; it would create a specific criminal offence of vandalising safety equipment around those water bodies; and it would expand water safety learning outcomes in the national curriculum to include a requirement to understand dangers related to swimming in open water.
The Government have already started to transform the water sector through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and have indicated that they will go further, having included a clean water Bill in the King’s Speech. If that is to be a serious public health Bill as well as an environmental Bill, drowning prevention must be part of it. I call for the Government to include water safety as part of that Bill.
Sam’s father, Simon Haycock, is not here today. He has done something extraordinary and amazing with unimaginable grief looking over him. He has fought with dignity and determination to make sure that other families do not go through what his family have gone through. In fact, right now, he is at a school teaching children about the dangers of swimming. He has spoken to communities and campaigned for Sam’s law. He has turned loss into action. The very least this House can do is listen.
In the late 1880s, an unidentified woman, now referred to as Annie, was found in the River Seine. A mould of her face was used as the first CPR training dummy. It was a tragedy, but it resulted in millions of lives being saved since. The darkness of the tragedies of Sam and Mackenzie, who recently died in the River Don, and all those we have lost through drowning, will bring light to others. Their legacy will be that Sam saves lives.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important and timely debate.
Although we have heard about the dangers of open water and the importance of water safety in the summer months, it is also important to recognise that the winter months bring their own risks. One of the ponds in my Carlisle constituency regularly freezes over during the winter months, which is important to remember. I am a cold-water swimmer, so I am very familiar with this subject. I know only too well the dangers of open water, the attendant risk of cold-water shock and the perilous after-drop that occurs when the body’s core temperature continues to fall even after exiting the water.
I mostly swim in my county’s beautiful lakes. I have, however, been known to swim in the River Eden, which runs through our great border city, and I am not alone. Tragically, this time three years ago, three young Carlisle boys got into difficulty while swimming in the River Eden. Two of the boys lost their lives. I extend my continued sympathy to their families for their heartbreaking loss. A member of the public, Luke Marwood, risked his life to rescue the third boy and was deservedly awarded a medal for his bravery. I pay tribute to Luke for his remarkable courage.
We should not need such tragedies to remind us of the dangers of water and of the importance of young people learning not only how to swim, but how to stay safe and survive in cold and dangerous water—flip, float, live. I praise the work of North Cumbria Search and Rescue, which works with groups such as the Scouts and Beavers to teach cold water and open water safety in my constituency. I also commend Cumberland council for installing throw lines at key points along our city’s three river—and, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about affordability, I commend the council for introducing swimming for 10p during half-terms at a number of our local swimming pools.
Key stage 2 swimming is, of course, a statutory part of the curriculum, and schools are expected to teach water safety. Nevertheless, given the relatively limited pool time available for key stage 2, I ask the Minister whether we should now be giving greater emphasis to water safety education rather than the technicalities of learning to swim, and whether a minimum statutory standard for water safety instruction could be established.
As our summers become hotter, more and more people will choose to swim in rivers and lakes and on our coastline. The RNLI estimates that almost 49 million people will visit the coast this summer. With that in mind, and given the dangers we have heard about today, I believe it would be timely and right to review the current approach to swimming and water safety education.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this important and timely debate on water safety. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for the work he has done. I also extend my condolences, on behalf of the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, to the families and friends of those who tragically lost their lives in water during the recent heatwave across the United Kingdom. Our thoughts are with them at this unimaginably difficult time.
Every other minute, someone in the world drowns—those lives wasted, those deaths preventable. Our country is a nation defined by its relationship with water. We are an island nation whose history, prosperity and identity have been shaped by our seas, rivers and lochs. Our proud maritime heritage connected us to the world. Our waterways powered the textile industries, which transformed Paisley in my constituency, and our lochs and coastlines provide places of outstanding natural beauty. In my constituency, the stunning surroundings of the Lochwinnoch wetlands attract visitors and local residents alike. However, our connection to water must be accompanied by a respect for its dangers. Far too often, calm waters conceal serious risks. Cold water shock, strong currents and rapidly changing conditions can turn a day of enjoyment into tragedy in moments.
Organisations such as the RNLI perform an invaluable service. I recently visited its headquarters and national training centre in Poole as part of the parliamentary knowledge scheme for frontline services. I was blown away by the breadth and depth of its work, and by the dangerous conditions in which it operates, often while coming to the help of our national Border Force. Its 7,900 lifeboat crew and shore crew volunteers, 451 lifeboats and hovercraft, most of which it designs itself, and 238 lifeboat stations create a ring of safety around the UK’s coasts. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, ready to answer the call to rescue and save lives. In 2024 alone, its work meant that 2,199 lives were saved, and 17,068 people were aided by RNLI lifeguards. I place on the record my sincere thanks to the thousands of volunteers who give their time and dedication to protecting others.
We cannot simply rely on charities and volunteers to shoulder this responsibility alone. Dedicated as they are, they cannot be present at every riverbank, loch side and stretch of coastline, so prevention must be at the heart of our approach. That means embedding water safety into our national culture in the same way as we have embedded fire safety and road safety awareness. Young people should learn it from an early age, but true education requires local authorities and public bodies to actively support the practical, hands-on training needed to stay safe.
Regrettably, too often we see obstacles in the way of this culture. In my own constituency, a local kayaking club, West Coast Paddlers, has repeatedly sought permission from a local arm’s length external organisation, OneRen, to use a local leisure centre pool to practise kayak rolls in a safe, controlled environment. Despite this training being commonplace and vital to prepare people for real-world conditions, its requests have been repeatedly denied over risk-averse concerns about minor damage that may be caused to the pool. If we are serious about embedding a culture of safety, we should be encouraging people to undertake training in a supervised environment before they enter open water. The cost of allowing access to a local pool is negligible compared with the tragic cost of inadequate preparation.
I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will work with local authorities and the Scottish Government on the resources needed for a true UK-wide education programme and a national awareness campaign, so that we can all play our part in helping to save more lives.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on the way he introduced this debate, and I share my condolences with all the families who are grieving at this time.
It is a national tragedy that we come here, year after year, to raise these issues. The bank holiday heatwave must be a turning point for the Government’s approach. These lives matter, as does their legacy. I pay tribute to York Rescue Boat, which does phenomenal work in our city, as we have heard. It has saved 45 lives—as a volunteer force, that is remarkable—and attended 974 incidents in our city, responded to 447 call-outs and dedicated more than 105,000 volunteer hours. It has a simple message: educate, prevent and, when necessary, rescue.
York Rescue Boat’s education programme in York schools is phenomenal for giving young people the opportunity to hear about the risks on the River Ouse and the River Foss. Every weekend it is out protecting the night-time economy and patrolling the rivers, looking for vulnerable people, breaking into conversation with them and going into the water to rescue people. Sadly, so many people enter the water in York because of poor mental health. It is important to acknowledge that and address the issues that challenge people in our society today.
I pay tribute to the parents of Sonny Ferry, who was 19 when he died in York. His parents, Kate and Steve, raised funds for York Rescue Boat to have a fully equipped new boat to bring rescue efforts into our city. I also pay tribute to the aunt of Leah Bedford. Leah was just 16 when she entered the water in 2023. Her aunt’s petition, which attracted 1,428 signatures and which I presented to the House, called for more safety measures on the infrastructure around our rivers: signage, lighting and CCTV cameras. That would make such a difference, but our local authority does not always have the money needed for such measures. Sir Chris Whitty is leading the public health water taskforce; I say to the Minister that it would be timely to introduce drowning and water safety measures into that.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of water pollution. The water in the River Ouse often looks very inviting, but it has seen over 18,500 hours’ worth of sewage release in the last year, with 2,950 sewage releases in York Central. The water is so polluted that people in my city are becoming ill, which is another completely avoidable danger that has been introduced into our water, and another public health response is needed. We are very much hoping to introduce a lido in our city, which will allow people to enjoy the water in a safe, outdoor place, but we must address those real risks in the River Ouse and the River Foss as we move forward.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey); I am grateful to him for taking the initiative to secure a debate on water safety. We have heard that, over the last six years, 196 children drowned in England. However, the hon. Gentleman went beyond the numbers and read, in a suitably sombre way, the list of young people who died in the heatwave last month. It really is a tragedy that we must reflect on.
Of course, people do not drown just in hot weather. Christmas day last year was a time when I, like many others, was wrapped up and getting as cosy as I could, but on the afternoon of December 25 we heard the news of a tragedy not far from us in Budleigh Salterton. Sometimes it is people with the greatest love of life who like to embrace the elements and enter the water, and that is what we heard about in Budleigh on Christmas day last year: two wild swimmers, Tom Johnson and Matthew Upham, who had entered the water on the coast of east Devon but did not return.
They were not novices or newcomers to the water; Tom, a father of two, was a physical education teacher, and Matthew, a local antiques dealer, was a regular sea swimmer; he is thought to have entered the water to help another person who was struggling. The Christmas day disaster helped us to realise that drowning is not something that simply happens somewhere else or to somebody else’s family. It can happen very close to home, and that really struck local communities hard. The sea is enormously powerful and must be treated with great respect.
I was very struck by the ask made by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on enabling people to learn to swim, which I think is crucial. In the area that I represent, we have one town, Cullompton, that has been campaigning for decades for a swimming pool to enable young people to get those vital life lessons in swimming, and that Cullompton swimming pool campaign goes on and on. Those of us who have observed local authority swimming pools know that maintaining them is really hard going, as many are struggling financially. In Axminster, we have the Flamingo swimming pool, which is run not by the local authority, but by the local community. They established and run the swimming pool, but they often struggle with maintenance costs. Those people who support such local pools do us all a service by educating the next generation to learn the vital life skill of swimming.
Of course, the dangers associated with swimming in the wild are additional to those associated with the relative safety of swimming in a pool. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the particular danger associated with quarries, while the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the Save Lives for Sam campaign, recounting the tale of Sam Haycock, who drowned in a reservoir on his last day of school.
Those two stories really struck a chord with me, because my friends and I got away with it. We put on our wetsuits on the last day of school and went tombstoning at a local quarry. We jumped from a 40-foot cliff face into the water below, with no heed for whether there was machinery or supermarket trolleys to entangle us at the bottom. I think now about how stupid that was, the public services that would have needed to find us and the hurt that we could have caused our families if it had gone wrong. I am not advocating for people to take no risk at all around the water—as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, there are mental health benefits associated with cold water swimming, but it needs to be done in an educated way, and we need to have proper conversations about what is a relatively safe use of the water.
The Minister knows that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have campaigned vehemently against sewage pollution in the rivers and seas, and one reason for that is to have cleaner waters in which to swim safely. We will maintain that campaign. We would love to see blue flag rivers—swimming spots where we can swim knowing that, of the dangers we can face while swimming, sewage pollution is not one. Nevertheless, we have to heed the dangers associated with cold water.
A yachtmaster wrote to me last week, reflecting on the deaths during the hot weather in May. It was one of those emails from a constituent that we like to receive—ones that do not just tell us about a problem, but offer a solution. He told me that he had done the Royal Yachting Association sea survival course. In a section entitled “What needs to happen”, he said that we need:
“A simpler scaled down version of the sea survival course, which explains the inherent risk of open water, inland water and open seas.”
He urged us to talk about cold water—we have already heard about cold water shock—and why we should avoid certain places at certain times of year. He wants education about tides and rip tides, and the dangers associated with wind and cold weather. Above all, he points out that those should be taught
“in a simple user friendly format and taught at school.”
From talking to the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Education, I know that we all have a particular ask that we want to foist on to the national curriculum, but for those of us who live in rural and coastal areas, the need to teach people about the dangers of the water is particularly acute.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen for securing this debate. I hope we can have a conversation about what can change around public education and the safe use of water.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this really important debate. He has been a staunch advocate of this issue since his election to Parliament, and I commend him on his efforts. He works closely with the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on this issue. I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Vanessa Abbess, the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen; she has been a tireless campaigner on water safety since the death of her son, Joe, in a riptide current in 2023.
I also want to acknowledge the work of several third-party organisations that have done so much good and important work on this issue, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England, whose commitment to water safety and education has been tremendous and whose good work has saved lives. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for the work it does in saving lives at sea.
This is an emotive topic. I thank all Members who have spoken for their commitment on this issue and for the work they have done on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen rightly advocated for better cross-Government support and a dedicated Minister. Having previously been the water Minister, I know how much of a struggle it is to pull together all Ministers with responsibility for water, so I commend and agree with the point he raised about trying to achieve better interministerial involvement. I also commend his work on raising awareness around a national campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) rightly raised the important work of stakeholders such as national parks in this area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about swimming in dangerous locations such as quarries, as well as the need for increased awareness.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) gave an impassioned speech about Chiedza, a young girl from her constituency who unfortunately passed away after getting into difficulty. I commend the work the hon. Lady is doing on behalf of her constituents, advocating for swimming lessons and increased awareness. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also gave an impassioned speech about Sam, who unfortunately passed away in the River Don. He rightly raised the concerns of Sam’s family about increasing awareness and the role of legislators in putting pressure on stakeholders, such as water companies, and on the education system. I hope the Government will consider the key points in Sam’s law, as there are critical recommendations they could take forward.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) rightly mentioned challenges in winter months, as well as hot periods, and the importance of water safety. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again raised the importance of having water safety encompassed in the curriculum and spoke about the challenges facing West Coast Paddlers in gaining access to the leisure centre. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the importance of creating safe spaces to swim outdoors; I wish her the best of luck with her lido application in York.
I have my own challenges in Keighley. There was a tragedy in the summer of 2021 when a 27-year-old man passed away after getting into difficulties at Ponden reservoir. I put on record my thanks to the Keighley Sea Cadets, who work tirelessly on behalf of constituents to raise awareness around water safety. I was lucky enough to join them recently at Ponden Mill near Stanbury to see their great work.
We have seen the terrible statistics that more than 19 people died in the water in one week during the most recent hot period. I reassure all hon. Members that we are committed to working cross-party with the Government to reduce the incidence of deaths in water, and increase the provision of swimming lessons and water safety education. We also need education for those involved in emergency situations. The figures are stark: between 2020 and 2025, more than 1,600 people died by accidental drowning, with three times as many drownings occurring during extreme heat as opposed to a typical summer’s day, and 47% occurring between May and August.
As several hon. Members rightly mentioned, education is key to preventing deaths in water, and that must start as early as possible. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education announced extra support for schools in a bid to ensure that every child could swim and be safe in and around water by the end of primary school, as part of the sporting future strategy. That was backed by £320 million through the PE and sport premium, with measures including extra lessons for children who did not meet expectations after core lessons.
Under this Government, work continues to improve water safety, such as the integration of the water safety code into new education guidance. I also welcome the additional funding put in place for this academic year for the PE and sport premium, which is used by primary schools to support swimming and water safety lessons.
There is, however, much more to be done, as all Members have noted. There remains a major issue regarding access to opportunities. A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres, which is down from the figure before the pandemic. That is not just a gap in ability but starkly corresponds to the demographic areas those children come from. Only 37% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres compared with 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds—a point noted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown. I would be keen to understand from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address that inequality, not only in the curriculum but in access to swimming facilities.
Another issue is the lack of suitable facilities in which water safety and water confidence can be taught. Swim England has found that 76% of publicly accessible water space has been lost over the last two decades. This is a twofold issue: on the one hand, water safety cannot be taught without pools, and on the other hand, the lack of publicly accessible water space could drive people to swim in unsafe spaces, as Members have noted. What are the Government doing to ensure that more facilities such as swimming pools are made available to our constituents, and that they remain open?
In addition to increasing access to swimming pools and delivering swimming lessons, there is a great deal of work to do to ensure that the general public are aware of all aspects of water safety. It is about not just teaching people to swim but ensuring that they are aware of the risks presented by entering water. Cold water shock, not an inability to swim, is identified as the primary mechanism of accidental drowning in UK open water, triggered by sudden immersion in water below 15°. The RNLI and the National Water Safety Forum’s “Float to Live” campaign teaches a specific counter-response: if you fall into cold water unexpectedly, do not fight it; lean back, spread your arms and legs, and float. Investing in and supporting awareness campaigns such as “Float to Live” is vital if we are to significantly reduce the number of deaths in UK waters. I would therefore like to understand what the Government are doing to help those organisations.
I would also like to understand what more the Water Minister feels could be done to the likes of bathing water regulations. It is constantly being advocated that the title of “bathing water” alone creates the presumption that the designated area is safe to swim in, but many of those designations are in river systems and on the coast where it is not necessarily safe to swim. The designations are more about water quality than the safety of the water.
It is clear that, despite the best intentions of current and previous Governments, we are not doing enough when it comes to water safety and the prevention of drowning. Many have rightly declared drowning a silent epidemic, and we must work cross-party to ensure that there is greater preparedness among the general public when it comes to water safety. I reassure all Members that the Opposition will work with the Government on this issue on behalf of all our constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents.
With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education.
Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror, who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House.
I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it.
In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.
Sarah Russell
It has been mentioned in this debate that there is great regional inequality, and that children in the most deprived areas are most likely to drown. Interventions solely focused on deprived areas concern me because there are considerable numbers of deprived children in England who do not live in deprived areas. We compound their disadvantage if we focus lifesaving decision making and resources only in those areas. I want to see deprived children across the whole country receive the assistance that they need—they should not be dying.
Emma Hardy
Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at.
Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in.
We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water.
This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward.
The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education.
Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.
Darren Paffey
Thank you, Ms McVey, for your skilful chairing and ensuring that everyone got to have their say. I thank every Member for bringing to life the devastation that drowning causes across this country. We do not and should not accept it as just something else that will rumble on. It is preventable with the right education, the right skills and the ability to swim, but there are clearly barriers holding us back that we must work together to break down. There is more to do. I appreciate the Minister’s response, and there is more to follow up on this, which I will do.
I thank every hon. Member for their contribution and appeal once again for us to tackle this as a national emergency. Let us tackle it for every victim whose name was heard in this Chamber this morning, and for the many hundreds more whose names we did not hear and yet whose families and friends have been devastated by their loss after their drowning death. Let us give drowning prevention the urgency that it deserves, and let us do it for them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered water safety.
Energy Costs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I will call Hannah Spencer to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they need to have sought permission from the Member in charge if they wish to intervene.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy costs.
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Ms McVey, and I am grateful to colleagues who are here today. This is my first speech in Westminster Hall, and we all have a lot to say on this issue, so I will see how I manage with interventions and where we go from there, if that is all right.
Today is exactly 100 days since I first set foot in Parliament, as the MP for Gorton and Denton. Since then, one issue has come up pretty much every single day, whether I am speaking to families in Gorton, support groups in Manchester or local Denton businesses that are desperate to keep their doors open, and that issue is the unaffordable cost of energy.
One in three households in Gorton and Denton is living in fuel poverty, and across England nearly 3 million households are in that position. Behind those statistics are people—people who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills each month, and families who are having to choose between staying warm and buying new school uniforms for their kids—kids who are playing penguins at bedtime because their parents are trying to make a game out of huddling together against the cold.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady: in her short time here, she has made a name for herself as someone who speaks on behalf of her constituents, so well done. Power NI supplies 60% of Northern Ireland homes—a 6.2% increase—and charges £1,093 for credit meters and £1,065 for keypad meters, on top of the £200 price increase last year for every family. That is how much it costs. The squeezing of the middle class is now a vice, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must step in now to release that energy vice and lower the costs by any means possible? Her constituents and my constituents want the same thing.
Hannah Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree that we have to do something to tackle this immediately.
Before I became an MP, I was a plumber. I spent my days going into people’s homes, and on so many occasions I saw the problem right in front of me. I remember walking into someone’s house and the air being so thick with damp that you could almost slice through it. The mum told me it was a constant battle to scrub mould off the walls. This was not an issue of ventilation, as some would try to suggest: it was a working family trying to provide for their kids and being unable to afford the basics—a warm home that is not full of damp; it was a working family handing their hard-earned cash to fossil fuel giants. Fossil fuel giants are never the ones asked to tighten their purse strings. No, it is always us who are expected to adjust our living standards, so that they can keep making excess profits.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Hannah Spencer
I will continue, if that is okay.
Bills have gone up by 79% since the energy crisis began in 2020. That is an extra £5,000, when our constituents’ hard-earned wages are already stretched to breaking point. Yet, from 1 July our constituents face another increase, of £221, when the next Ofgem price cap comes into effect. That is why, on my second day in Parliament, I helped to get the all-party parliamentary group on fuel poverty back up and running, and why I will join Fuel Poverty Action and other campaigners on 1 July to demand that energy costs are brought down for good.
The scale of this crisis for families is enormous. It also perfectly captures what the Green party means when we talk about rip-off Britain. While my constituents are struggling, fossil fuel giants and privatised energy companies are cashing in, and almost a quarter of energy bills are taken as profit. In the first month after the US and Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, the share value of just five North sea oil and gas companies was boosted by £73 billion—£73 billion in one month. The family owners and chairman of the private oil and gas company Perenco are worth £8 billion and are now among the top 25 richest people in the UK.
All of that has happened in a country where a million children under five live in fuel poverty, and where one in three kids in Greater Manchester lives in poverty. Working hard used to get people a decent life; now it is more likely to line the pockets of billionaires, fossil fuel companies and energy giants.
The Green party is clear that things have to change. First, people in my constituency need support immediately, not in three months’ time. The Chancellor is apparently “monitoring the situation” and will intervene if necessary, but on behalf of families dreading the months ahead, and on behalf of disabled people who have high energy use all year round to run specialist equipment, I am telling the Government that today is the day when it is definitely necessary. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now? If not, what are the Government going to do to support bill payers with rising energy costs from July and into the winter? Will they increase the warm home discount, which has not kept pace with rising bills? Shifting some policy costs off bills is positive, as are steps to separate electricity and gas prices, but all electricity levies could be paid for more fairly by progressive taxation. We need to be taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires more fairly. Providers of frontline support, such as community warm spaces—of which there are a lot in my constituency—need immediate support too. Does the Minister agree that those vital community assets should get lower energy rates?
Secondly, it is time to stamp out profiteering. Unite the Union found that UK energy companies made £30 billion in pre-tax profits in 2024 alone. While the Government’s anti-profiteering framework announced in May is welcome, what other steps is the Minister taking to stop billions being transferred from bill payers to the pockets of international shareholders? What assessment has been made of the benefits of taking the grid, which enjoys some of Britain’s highest profit margins, back into public ownership?
Thirdly, we need a fully funded, local authority-led, national home insulation scheme that people trust to insulate homes to an energy performance certificate standard of B or above, and an EPC scheme that cannot be manipulated. Our homes leak more heat than most places in western Europe—trust me, I have seen them.
Real action demands investment and stronger regulations so that every retrofit job delivers proper savings and real improvements. Next week, I hope to meet some of the victims of the Conservatives’ failed home insulation scheme. As a plumber, if I had done a botched job, I would have been forced to fix it or pay up. Why is the Minister’s Department not ensuring that every single victim of shoddy contractors receives remediation?
Hannah Spencer
I am going to continue.
Fourthly and finally, we must go further and faster on renewables. New fossil fuel extraction will not bring down bills or improve the UK’s energy security—a fact I know the Minister agrees with. Since the start of the war in Iran, wind and solar have saved the UK from gas imports worth £1.7 billion. Can the Minister provide assurance that the Government will not approve proposed drilling at Rosebank, Jackdaw or Cambo, or allow new oil and gas extraction through tiebacks to existing production facilities? How will the Department use the upcoming energy independence Bill to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels?
I am pleased to have secured this debate on my 100th day as an MP. Last Sunday marked the 100th day of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which, as well as inflicting untold suffering and devastating in the region, has triggered the UK’s second major energy price crisis of the 2020s. I recognise all that the Government are doing to bring that international crisis to an end, and I hope the Minister will use this moment to also try to end the crisis of unaffordable energy costs for my constituents and millions of others across the country.
Hannah Spencer
I am just about to finish.
If we do not do something, this issue will keep happening. We need to act—not in the interests of fossil fuel giants, but in the interests of the very people who sent us to this place to make their lives more liveable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for securing the debate, and I congratulate her on her first Westminster Hall debate and on giving hon. Members across the Chamber the opportunity to discuss a vital issue for all our constituents.
As I draw the debate to a close, I want to be very clear about this Government’s priorities. The increase in the price cap announced by Ofgem two weeks ago is not what any of us wanted, and it is caused by the war in Iran. Two days before the conflict began, the price cap fell by 7%—a reduction that is still built into the prices being paid today. As the Prime Minister has said, this is not our war, but we are now feeling the effects of it. That is why we are very clear that the strait of Hormuz must be reopened to traffic.
Richard Burgon
Is it not totally outrageous that energy giants will make billions in extra profits from Trump’s war on Iran while ordinary people are hit with higher costs? Does the Minister agree that we should introduce an emergency war profits tax to ensure that they cannot make a single extra penny in super-profits from this crisis? We can use that money to fund urgent cost of living support.
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend will know that decisions about tax are for the Chancellor. We already have the windfall tax on energy profits in place—a tax opposed by the SNP and the Conservative Opposition.
I will turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) in a moment. As I was saying, it is not our war, but we are now feeling the effects, and that is why we are very clear that the strait of Hormuz must be reopened to traffic. As Members across the Chamber would expect, we are continuing to monitor the situation. We are exploring all options for future support, but we are taking action now to deal with high prices.
Let us be clear why we are doing that: we know that the pressure of high energy costs is very real for many families across the country, as the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton described. Households continue to feel the burden of bills, particularly where incomes are tight, and there is little room in their budgets for unexpected costs. We are determined to return bills to the downward path they were on before the outbreak of the war. It is important to note that energy prices in 2025 were lower than they were in 2024. We delivered a 7% reduction in energy prices in February. They were on a downward trajectory before the outbreak of war in Iran. We are doing this to tackle fuel poverty and protect people from the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets that has left too many families exposed to volatile energy prices for too long.
Susan Murray
It is good to hear the Government’s intention to reduce energy prices. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) is right to call for more affordable energy. In France, electricity is about a third cheaper than it is here, with nuclear at the heart of the system. Does the Minister agree that ruling nuclear out or not progressing it quickly enough is wrong, and will he join me in calling for the assessment of Scotland’s nuclear potential to be published?
Martin McCluskey
I join the hon. Lady in those calls on nuclear energy, which is essential to our energy mix. She highlighted the example of France; one reason why its electricity cost is so low is that it carried on building nuclear through the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. Unlike this country, where we had a stop-start approach to nuclear energy, France has been able to keep costs low. It is disappointing that we have seen opposition to nuclear from the SNP, which will not allow it to be built in Scotland, and from the Green party, which has opposed it, including at Wylfa in north Wales, where we are creating a whole generation of new jobs around nuclear. More than 1,900 Scots move from Scotland to England each week to work on nuclear projects—people who could be working far closer to home if there was a new generation of nuclear energy in Scotland.
Turning back to the action the Government have already taken, in the autumn Budget we acted to reduce electricity costs, to the benefit of all households with a domestic electricity meter. We did that by scrapping the energy company obligation and moving 75% of the domestic costs of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. By doing that, we have been able to provide immediate savings for households.
The average saving was around £117 within the price cap, but because it disproportionately fell on electricity—I know that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) is interested in the cost of electricity, particularly in rural areas—the discount for rural areas and those on electricity was well over £300 within the price cap. As I said earlier, those changes are still factored into energy bills now; without that action, the July price cap would have been significantly higher.
We also announced the continuation of the warm home discount scheme until 2030-31. That will provide around 6 million eligible households with a £150 rebate on energy bills each winter; it is a significant extension of what was available under the previous Government, and it has reached far more people in the last year than it did in the past.
The main, structural reason why we find our energy bills so high is because of our exposure, in this country, to volatile international gas markets. The only answer to dealing with those high prices is to take back control of our energy through clean, home-grown power and homes that are cheaper to run. That approach is supported by our warm homes plan. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton alluded to the need for more retrofitting and improvements to be made to housing, and that is what we are doing through the warm homes plan, which represents the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister is making a powerful point about the investments that the Government are making in green and clean energy. In Macclesfield, families are suffering from high energy costs at the pumps or in making sure that their homes are warm when they need to be. Does he agree that tackling climate change, investing in clean energy and bringing down bills come together as a coherent argument, and that we should all be making the case for that?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents. He is making the argument not just for lower prices at the pump and lower costs of energy, but for doing that in a clean, green way. Those two things do go hand in hand; we can reduce energy and fuel prices while people can also make important decisions about clean energy in their own lives. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
As I was saying, the approach that we are taking is supported by our warm homes plan, which represents the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history. It is backed by £15 billion and will help upgrade up to 5 million homes by 2030; that means real improvements to the homes people live in.
Households will benefit from solar panels, clean heat technologies and batteries, and improved insulation. Insulation is an essential part of what we are trying to do in the warm homes plan; it has always been part of Government schemes and will into the future. All that is to cut bills and improve comfort for homeowners, renters and others. It will mean a housing stock that is better prepared for the future and a country that is less vulnerable to energy price shocks.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
We are waiting for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to come up with the results of the community benefit consultation. The highlands only got £9 million of community benefit last year, and Scotland as a whole got less than £30 million. There are tens of thousands of jobs in renewables in the highlands, but they are not for locals; they are imported teams. Very often, offshore firms are doing the construction. We sell 10 times more electricity than we produce. Effectively, there is nothing in it for the people of rural Scotland to produce electricity. Does the Minister agree that the community benefit conclusion from DESNZ is crucial?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We will come forward with the response on community benefits soon. I point him towards what we have already announced regarding a trial of free wind power for communities close to generation, which will be coming later this year. His point about workforce is also really important. That is why I am chairing a workforce taskforce with the TUC to work through those points and make sure that we have good, home-grown jobs that are unionised and pay decent wages, and that local communities are feeling the benefit of that.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) referred to retrofitting in her speech, and the Minister has talked about its importance. In Northampton, one of the biggest concerns people have about committing to retrofit is getting a dodgy builder. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recognise that, and we have recommended to Government that they bring forward a licensing scheme for contractors and an accreditation scheme for tradespeople. Could the Minister set out how the Government are progressing on that?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We are coming forward soon with our proposals for consumer protection. I have said before in this Chamber that the first thing that landed on my desk, when I came into this role in September, was the NAO’s report into the previous Government’s energy company obligation scheme, which was shocking—awful. To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton, my driving force behind any consumer protection work that we do is to make sure that no one faces such a situation ever again.
We are working with those affected by the problems with solid wall insulation and internal wall insulation. We are working through a process of audits to reach every single one of those homes by next year and make sure that those people get the support they need. The hon. Lady mentioned that in her remarks, and we are taking action on SWI and IWI to reach every household. In some of the hot spots for poor work, we are sending people door to door to make sure that we reach each household, audit the properties, work out what remediation is required and then remediate it. We will be able to provide a more detailed update on that work soon. Those actions and others will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030.
The warm homes plan is an offer for everyone. For those on low incomes and in fuel poverty—those who need it most—we are providing £5 billion of direct grant support for home upgrades delivered by local authorities and social housing providers. Given where the hon. Lady’s constituency is, I pay tribute to the work that the Greater Manchester combined authority has been doing through the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant—it is leading the way in some of the work that is being done.
We are making it easier for everyone to access low and zero-interest finance for technologies that can bring bills down over time. We have a strategic partnership with the Green Finance Institute to establish low-cost loans, ideally before the end of this year, to make sure that people have access to finance and can take advantage of clean technology; we cannot have a situation, as we have had in the past, where only those people with the deepest pockets are able to access these cost-saving measures.
We are, of course, continuing to support the expanded boiler upgrade scheme available to every eligible household in England and Wales. We have also broadened the range of clean heat technologies supported by the boiler upgrade scheme and continue to work with the industry to make clean heat and home energy upgrades simpler.
As the situation in Iran has developed over the past few months, we have seen that households want the chance to generate and use their own clean electricity. That is why the Government are supporting a rooftop revolution to bring solar technology into more homes; hon. Members may have seen the increase in solar over recent months. Subject to final approvals, we are bringing an additional £100 million of funding to the warm homes social housing fund, to support the delivery of up to 57,000 solar installations in this financial year. Our plan is to make plug-in solar available in this country for the first time, opening opportunities for homes where traditional rooftop installation is harder.
We also know that, in too many cases, the people paying the price of inefficient homes are the people with the least power to change them. Around 1.6 million children in this country live in cold and damp conditions in private rented accommodation, which is frankly a disgrace. That is why, as part of the warm homes plan, we are introducing new minimum energy efficiency standards in the social and private rental sectors. Alongside what other parts of Government are doing on wider housing reforms, such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, they will make sure that renters can benefit from warmer homes and lower bills, and that energy affordability is not reserved just for owner-occupiers.
Before I conclude, I want to turn to a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton raised some issues around taxation. I have already mentioned in response to other Members the windfall tax, which remains in place, opposed by the Conservatives and the SNP. We have also recently announced increases to the energy generators levy and the encouragement to take those generators from the contracts they are on at the moment on to longer-term contracts for difference. Within the price cap is a cap on profit; the earnings before interest and taxes allowance caps profit at 1.9% and ensures that profit is there, but adequately capped.
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to be going further and faster on the deployment of clean energy, but I draw her attention to the actions of some of her colleagues in local authorities across the country, where Green councillors have opposed clean energy that, on the latest estimate, could power 9.9 million homes. If we believe in clean power and this agenda, we must place our political will behind it to make sure that we move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
The Government’s message here is straightforward: we are acting to deliver support directly to those who need it most. We have a serious, long-term plan to reduce exposure to fossil fuel price shocks, improve the homes people live in and ensure that everyone can reap the benefits of this Government’s clean power mission. Our approach is practical, fair and, above all, rooted in the everyday concerns of households. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.
Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It would be remiss of me not to mention, at the start of the debate, the appalling incident that happened in north Belfast last night. I am sure that hon. Members agree that we roundly condemn that serious assault. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the individual assaulted. We hope he makes a speedy recovery and we call for calm in the protests that will occur right across Northern Ireland tonight. It is up to this Government to address the serious concerns of the public.
As the Member for North Down, I rise to speak about an issue that is at once local, regional and national: the future of police training in Northern Ireland and the urgent need for the United Kingdom Government to step up and fund a modern, single-site police college as a matter of national security. It is not a luxury project; it is a core part of the critical national infrastructure. Northern Ireland police officers past and present have stood on the frontline of threats that have not been confined to Belfast, Bangor or Newry, but have reached to the hearts of London, Birmingham and Manchester, and beyond. The skills those police officers develop, the intelligence they contribute and the partnerships they underpin with UK-wide agencies all flow from the training that they receive. If we value their contribution to the safety of every citizen in the United Kingdom, we must be honest about the state of the facilities that we expect them to train in and about the scale of the investment that realistically only the UK Government can provide.
At the heart of the proposal for a new training college is a 54.8-acre site in my constituency of North Down. It is a site of sufficient scale to bring together on one campus the full spectrum of modern policing training: recruit training, specialist firearms and public order training, cyber-crime and digital forensics training, and training in road policing and marine policing, as well as leadership development and continuous professional training. On the 54.8-acre site there is space to do that properly by designing purpose-built classrooms, scenario villages, driving tracks, ranges and simulation suites that reflect the real world environments that officers face. That is the future we could and should build, but today we do not train our officers in such a place. Instead, we rely heavily on Garnerville—an ageing and constrained estate—and on a patchwork of split-site arrangements across Northern Ireland.
It is time that we were candid about what that actually means. Garnerville has served with distinction for decades. Many of our finest officers have passed through those gates, but sentiment does not mend roofs, rebuild tired accommodation blocks or magically transform 20th-century buildings into 21st-century digital training hubs. The maintenance realities at Garnerville are stark. Every year more and more of the already stretched budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is poured into simply keeping the lights on and the structures safe by patching up old wiring and maintaining leaky roofs, into trying to retrofit modern information and communications technology into buildings never designed for it, and into constantly working around the constraints of a campus that has quite simply reached the end of its usefulness and economic life. Engineers have been clear at best: with ongoing remedial work and ever-greater maintenance bills, the existing core facilities have perhaps 10 years of realistic lifespan left—10 years at most. That is to keep an outdated model limping on, not to deliver the standard of training that a modern UK police service facing complex, fast-moving threats truly requires.
We face a choice. Do we continue to sink millions of pounds into life-extending repairs on a site that cannot by its very nature deliver what is needed, or do we invest once in a modern, consolidated college on a 54.8-acre site that is available, appropriate and future-proofed? The truth is that the current split-level model is no longer financially or operationally defensible. Training being scattered across multiple locations leads to the duplication of facilities and staff, increased travel time and transport costs, ineffective scheduling, wasted officer hours, a fragmented culture, inconsistent training experiences and logistical complexities that pull focus away from core training qualities.
In an area in which we ask our officers to handle everything from neighbourhood disputes to international organised crime, we should not be asking them to shuttle between sites because one campus cannot meet their needs, nor should we accept a model where some specialist training must be compromised or curtailed because the facilities are not available in the right place at the right time.
A single, purpose-built college on the site in North Down would end the split-site inefficiency and bring recruits, specialists and leaders together. It would allow shared use of high-quality simulation environments—digital labs, scenario streets and lecture theatres. It would foster a genuine shared professional culture across ranks and disciplines, and crucially it would do so on a site that is large and flexible enough to evolve with the threats we know are coming over the next 30 to 40 years, and not just the next five years.
Some might say, “This is a devolved matter—let Stormont pay.” That argument simply does not stand up when we consider the nature of the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland does and the national security dimension, which in Northern Ireland is inseparable from policing. Let us be clear: the PSNI works hand in glove with the security services, the National Crime Agency and police forces across Great Britain on counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, cyber-threats and the protection of critical national infrastructure. Threats that are planned or incubated in Northern Ireland may be executed across other areas of the United Kingdom. Intelligence gathered on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry can keep people safe in London or Glasgow.
Northern Ireland is not a distinct, separate theatre of operations; it is an integral front in the security of the whole United Kingdom. The officers we train in Garnerville or Antrim are not just local officers; they are part of a UK-wide network of professionals protecting all of us from terrorism, paramilitary criminality, people smuggling, drug trafficking, cyber-attacks and hostile state activities exploiting our unique geographic and political context.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that in addition to having a state-of-the-art training facility—and I agree with him on that—we need to have more police officers on the street. The police in Northern Ireland are understaffed, and we need to see more politicians, some of whom are absent today, standing with and recruiting people from all communities, so that they can be trained and serve people in Northern Ireland.
Alex Easton
I agree with everything the hon. Member says. We are 1,000 police officers down from what we need to deal with crime in Northern Ireland. That is a failing of Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, who has failed to find the funding to recruit those extra officers, but even if we got those extra officers, we do not have the facilities to train them properly. It is a vicious circle. That is why we need to step up and do something about this.
Investing in a modern, secure and fully equipped police college is not a regional spending decision, but a UK national security decision. When we fund new facilities for the Metropolitan police to train their counter-terrorism officers, nobody pretends that it is merely a London issue. When we invest in specialist training centres in England, Scotland or Wales, we recognise that the benefits radiate across the borders. The same logic applies in Northern Ireland. If a police training facility serving the frontline of UK counter-terrorism and serious crime in any other part of our country had only 10 years of realistic life left and operated across a fragmented, split-site model, this House would rightly expect the UK Government to act. We would not expect a single devolved budget, already under pressure from health, education and infrastructure, to shoulder that burden alone.
Moreover, the risks of inaction are not theoretical. Allow me to spell them out. First, a failure to invest over the next decade will steadily degrade training quality. As the buildings become harder and more expensive to maintain and as technological advances become more and more out of step with operational reality, the temptation grows to do just enough training rather than the best training, and our police service in Northern Ireland deserves the very best. Secondly, split-site inefficiencies will continue to erode value for money. Every pound spent duplicating facilities or transporting officers between ageing sites is a pound not spent on actually improving our protectivity and capabilities.
Thirdly, there is a risk to morale and recruitment. We ask bright, committed young men and women to join an exceptionally demanding police service in a uniquely challenging environment. Showing them that we are prepared to invest in a world-class training facility is part of respecting that ask. Leaving them in crumbling buildings, patched-up classrooms and outdated accommodation sends the opposite message. Finally, there is a strategic risk that the UK as a whole allows one of its key security partners, the PSNI, to fall behind in capacity and capability because we are unwilling to grasp the nettle of capital funding at the right time.
This is precisely the kind of investment that the UK Government should recognise and support as part of our national security framework. It is a single-focus project that has clear outcomes: ending an inefficient split-site model, replacing facilities with at best 10 years left of life, creating a modern 54-acre campus site capable of delivering cutting-edge training for decades, and strengthening co-operation with UK-wide security partners. The people of North Down and Northern Ireland understand the local and national significance of the project. Locally, it would bring skilled employment and investment and would send a clear signal that our area is a hub of professional excellence. Nationally, it would send a signal across the United Kingdom that we are serious, not just in words but in hard infrastructure, about maintaining the safety and security of every region of our country.
My appeal to the Minister today is simply to look beyond the narrow lines of departmental spreadsheets and see this for what it is: a critical national security investment in one of the most tested, professional police services in the United Kingdom. If we can find the resources for the site in North Down, we will build not simply some new classrooms and a few training tracks; we will build confidence among officers that we are behind them and confidence among the public across all four nations of the United Kingdom that we are serious about their safety. The alternative is to limp on at Garnerville, pouring good money after bad into a site with a maximum of 10 years left and locking into an inefficient split-site model. It is just not prudent. It is a false economy and a risk to the security of all.
The choice is clear. I urge the Government to choose the future, to commit to the necessary UK funding to deliver a modern single-site police college on the North Down campus, and to do so openly in an investment in the national security of our entire United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for allowing me to speak. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my friend and colleague from many a year ago on the council and as Members of the Legislative Assembly, for his ceaseless passion to ensure that our community has the best police service possible. He has put that on the record and I congratulate him.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is a friend of Northern Ireland and he has proven that to be the case. We will now test how far his friendship goes—no, it is not fair to say that. I know that he will give us some encouragement in how we can move forward to support the hon. Member for North Down. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in his place—he is a friend of Northern Ireland and of all of us in this House—as well as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) who will speak for the Lib Dems.
I express my sincere gratitude and thanks to the PSNI for all it has done and does for us in Northern Ireland. I thank Chief Constable Jon Boutcher for his commitment and his actions on behalf of the PSNI. I also give special thanks to Superintendent Johnston McDowell, whom I share with the hon. Member for North Down, and all his officers for what they do. The hon. Member for North Down and I are both very committed to community policing. It is one of our good points in North Down and Strangford where we have an excellent community policing workforce.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college, responsible for the delivery of the organisation’s training and development. This year’s recruitment round received more than 4,000 applications for student officer, demonstrating the willingness of people from a broad range of backgrounds to join the service and contribute to the safety of our communities.
I can cast my mind back to the introduction of the 50:50 rule, which, by its nature, stopped those who could have been good officers in the PSNI from being recruited. I will tell a story about my oldest boy Jamie who applied to join the PSNI through the 50:50 programme. It is no reflection on his best friend in Kircubbin, who also applied at the same time. It just so happened that my Jamie was a Protestant and that the other wee boy was a Roman Catholic. That does not take away from his capability, energy and commitment to the police. They did all the same recruitment tests and application forms. I know about this, because boys share stories. The wee boy, who was a good friend from Kircubbin he went to school with, did not score as highly as my Jamie, yet my Jamie did not get the job in the PSNI, but the other wee boy did.
The reason I tell that story is because of the imbalance. That young boy from Kircubbin is an excellent police officer today who has done really well. We admire him and he has all the qualities that we need, but there is something grossly unfair about a 50:50 system that stops somebody getting a job when he scored better than someone else, just because he happened to go to a different church on a Sunday. That is a disappointment. We do not have the 50:50 any more, thank the Lord. That is a good thing, because it means people will get the job they applied for because they have the capability, experience and aptitude to do it well.
In recognition of the commitment of these future officers, investment in their training should be prioritised to ensure that their willingness to serve is matched by the skills and knowledge required to police effectively. The PSNI is part of the great police forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down hit on that point clearly. Those in the PSNI sometimes bear the weight of other public services in times of crisis. We are the only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a land border. That is one of the massive issues we have to recognise.
I hope when the Minister responds he will recognise the extra tasks we have on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, such as immigration. Rural theft is also a massive issue in which the PSNI has been very active recently. There is also a terrorism threat, as well as international gangs with money laundering, people trafficking and international crime. Those all add to the PSNI’s financial burden.
I like certain films, such as those starring Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington. They are the guys who can sort everything out in the 90 minutes a film takes from beginning to end. That is not how life is in the real world we live in. Life in the real world means that the PSNI has to work long and hard with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, the police forces in mainland Scotland, Wales and England, and as far as the EU, to ensure that they catch criminals. That is real life, not the one that lasts 90 minutes, where the good person always beats the baddie, who is either dead or in prison when they have finished with them.
The training college has a demanding 22-week selection process to ensure the best for the job are selected. Due to the intensive nature of the job and the border with the Republic of Ireland, officers should be equipped physically and mentally to perform their role. That requires greater investment and tailored support services, with improved access to professional expertise from the beginning of the training programme.
Although the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved since the PSNI was established in 2001—I thank God for that—the threat of paramilitarism persists and gang warfare is also very real. The incident in North Belfast on which the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), secured an urgent question today is also an example of the things that we all have to face in this modern world that we live in. I think the Secretary of State gave us as many answers as he could today, because there is to be a PSNI conference this afternoon that will disclose some other information pertinent to the investigation.
Investment in the police training college should reflect the higher level of training required to deal effectively with the distinct risks that officers in Northern Ireland face. We still have a small but very significant threat. The PSNI indicates that through the Real IRA, or Official IRA, or whatever they call themselves now—the three letters always maintain their focus—about 200 people in Northern Ireland are involved in a terrorist campaign. Now, 200 people can keep things boiling for a long time, so there is still a relevant IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that has to be faced down.
The expertise that comes from experience cannot be overestimated, and the need for training cannot simply be a paper exercise; a mirroring image of those who are in the job is essential. The training college—the very thing that the hon. Member for North Down, I and everyone including the Minister and the shadow Minister want—offers all of that despite its budget not being fit for purpose.
Regardless of the rapidly changing needs of the training college, the PSNI budget has been cut year on year since 2011. The financial decline takes away the PSNI’s ability to recruit, train and regularly service their vehicles, along with all the things needed as part of its work, including helicopters, drones and search teams. A police force is not just the bobby walking up and down the street; it is much more than that. That is why it is so important that we keep things going.
This problem has been further compounded by the collapse of the Executive and the one-year budget settlement. I just cannot work out why we have a budget that rumbles or slumbers along and does not address the issues but instead seems to put them off for another day. Simultaneously, legacy investigations and legal action are draining the PSNI’s resources as well. There are lots of pressures from all sides on the PSNI. A dedicated and protected funding allocation for those costs would help ensure that police training and development is properly sustained and delivered to the high standard required: that of a modern police force able to deal with all the circumstances that it has to—sometimes those that come out of the blue like last night—but that is also equipped and ready for others.
That is especially needed as the demands placed on the PSNI continue to evolve with cyber-crime. That is very technical and we have spoken about it here in the Chamber on other occasions. It is really important that our PSNI can engage with the police forces in Scotland, Wales and England and ensure that those things are taken care of. It must also respond to mental health incidents. I sometimes wonder about the pressure on the young officers who are called out to see somebody who has had a domestic incident, an attempted suicide or a car accident, and the effect these things have on the police officer’s mental health. It is not just about the mental health of those they meet; it is about the mental health of the police officers. These are all the demands that are on our police officers today and it presents a really complex challenge for them.
The rewards of a policing career can be immense, but officers give a great deal in return, and we thank them sincerely for that. It is therefore essential that they enter the role as fully equipped as possible. Support must be given to the development of officers’ foundational skills to ensure that they can confidently adapt to the changing needs of the role, and to ensure that they, as police officers, can fulfil those.
I am long enough in the tooth to look back and remember the police forces back in the time of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I remember the management and people skills that those seasoned officers had and which they were able to pass on to the new officers coming in. Many of those police officers have now retired, so it is too late to take advantage of those social skills and the things that they learned from others over the years.
If we want a safe and cohesive police service, the bottom line is that it must be funded. That is what I am asking for, like the hon. Member for North Down, and it is what others will ask for shortly, too. If we want equal opportunity for all races, sexes and creeds—and we should, we must and we will—it must be an attractive job with potential for the future. If we want to guard our streets, guide our young people and keep them right and give them opportunities, we need officers who are well trained, well paid and well equipped. This starts with the funding designated by Westminster—in Westminster Hall today, in the main Chamber and in Parliament.
I look to the Minister to recognise the vital role that the PSNI training college will have over the next 25 years in society in Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important, why the hon. Gentleman raised it and why we in this House need to push hard for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and others who will contribute. We see the need for it; let us make sure it happens.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on bringing forward this motion. I also join him in his comments on the horrific attack in north Belfast. Comments were also made in the House earlier today, and I reinforce the call for calm. This debate is about the PSNI training facility at Kinnegar, but it should not be forgotten that in the past, our police were the frontline and suffered many attacks and many threats. That should not be the fallout of yesterday’s attack.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are many current police training facilities around Northern Ireland. I recently visited PSNI Steeple in my constituency, which looks after canine handling. It was fantastic to visit and see at first hand the dedication in that unit—from the dog handlers to the trainers, those who look after the dogs in the kennels and the entire welfare section. They noted that Kinnegar, or PSNI Redburn as it will be known, will result in the closure of many such facilities across Northern Ireland. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from when he talks of centralisation. It also puts pressure on those people who will not work in remote training facilities. They will have to relocate, or their jobs will be in jeopardy. That should not take away, however, from the hope of a new training facility at PSNI Redburn.
We always look back in Northern Ireland and reflect. Many years ago, there was an opportunity of a joint police and fire service college at Desertcreat. Many of my colleagues present know that that was well put forward when they were Members of the Legislative Assembly. At that stage, the police service withdrew due to capital and financial pressures, but the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service went on and developed Desertcreat into a fantastic training facility, with many of the facilities that the hon. Member for North Down talks about. It could have been bigger, and it could have delivered cross-blue-lights services, but unfortunately that did not go ahead.
The police service has purchased the land at the former barracks in Kinnegar to develop its own training site. This place should be seeking to support the development of that site at an early stage. The proposal for a new police college at Kinnegar seeks to deliver a vision first identified during the Patten reforms: a modern, purpose-built centre for police training and professional development. The acquisition of the former Kinnegar barracks site represents what we believe is the most significant step in a generation towards a new police training campus, and the development of our police officers that has been mentioned by the two previous speakers.
When we see the dedication of our current police force, which the hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the current TV series in Northern Ireland, “Peelers: The PSNI for Real”. It was developed by Stephen Nolan, and I think it has brought forward the real challenges as it follows the day-to-day experiences of our police officers. If you have not viewed it yet, Sir Roger, I would recommend it to you—and to other Members and the House. When we look at the development and the challenge, they need that training. It is vital to make sure that they are properly equipped for every scenario, and that is what a centralised training college will provide.
The site will provide a substantial footprint, capable of supporting not only recruit training, but a wider range of specialist policing functions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard recently from the Chief Constable and previous Chief Constables that the PSNI is unique as a police force because it has to supply most of those specialist officers itself; geographically, it does not have the ability to call in mutual aid from other forces. The proposal has evolved beyond a traditional training school and now includes plans for a broader policing and crime training campus. The PSNI sees the project as an opportunity to bring training, leadership development and specialist capabilities together in a single, modern location. As I said, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has linked the proposal directly to the long-standing ambition for a world-class police college in Northern Ireland, but the challenge is always around the financing and capital spend, where the police have always been under pressure.
The new campus, intended to support increased recruitment and help to prepare future officers for the increasingly complex demands of modern policing, would be welcome. The PSNI has incorporated the project into its long-term estates strategy and has established dedicated planning and consultation work to develop the site—it is already putting in the background work. While questions remain about funding and delivery, it is notable that the PSNI’s stated position is that Kinnegar offers a strategic opportunity to strengthen policing capability, professional standards and workforce development for decades to come. In that instance, I support the motion.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. I support both the concept of and the need for a proper training facility of modern standards for the PSNI. As has been referred to, some years ago, there was a proposition to have the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Prison Service and the PSNI on a joint training site at Desertcreat. Frankly, that would have cost a lot less than the cumulative cost now facing the PSNI alongside what was spent at Desertcreat for the Fire and Rescue Service. It was, perhaps, rather short-sighted not to have proceeded with that expenditure at that time.
Policing is now a devolved matter, and the Minister will no doubt tell us today that the responsibility for it lies with the Stormont Executive. Maybe the devolving of policing, as some of us said at the time, was not such a good idea after all; if it had not been devolved, then there would be no hiding place for the Minister. There would be no batting this away and saying, “That is for Stormont.” The obligation would be—as I think it always should have been—with the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office.
We are now in a situation where the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland is bidding for £116 million but, from what I can see, there has been no positive response from the Department of Finance in Stormont. She can make as many bids as she likes, but until the money is granted, nothing is going to happen. Is something going to happen under a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who would far rather squander money on net zero madness, needless and expensive Irish language signing, and useless north-south bodies? I would dare to say that the PSNI and its needs are pretty far down the Sinn Féin Finance Minister’s list of priorities.
It would be far better if policing had never been devolved. Then, if this need had still existed, we could have come here today and really put it to the Minister that it was his responsibility and his Government’s obligation, and that they were the ones who were failing. Instead, he can rightly say, to a significant extent, that it is Stormont that has failed to provide the policing facilities. That was one of many mistakes made in respect of devolution.
Yes, we need a training centre, but what will the training there encompass? I ask that question in light of the controversy last week in this place about the need to readjust the training directives for police officers in the United Kingdom, which had gone overboard in terms of their political correctness. Is the same thing going to happen in respect of the PSNI?
I suspect that it is, because when I look at the PSNI’s “Race and Ethnicity Action Plan 2025-2030”, I read about matters such as:
“mandatory… cultural competence training to all…officers”.
What on earth does that mean? In paragraph 3.3.2 of the plan, I read language that speaks of:
“Interacting…in an…appropriate and culturally sensitive way”.
What does that mean?
In Great Britain, we have seen training that reduced the scandal of what happened to Mr Nowak, when police arrived and, on the playing of the race card, automatically looked for the white man. That is what happened in that case. Is that what will happen in Northern Ireland under this PSNI training? If it is, we can do without it. We want policing based on training that is fundamentally fair and equal for all. Frankly, it is no comfort that this “ethnicity action plan” is to be overseen by our highly politicised and politically perverse Equality Commission. If that body has anything to do with the plan, then it will definitely head in the wrong way.
There need to be lessons learned right across this United Kingdom, including from the attack on young Mr Nowak. There need to be lessons learned about the abomination of what has become a corrupting political correctness, which is affecting training for our services. People just want policemen who act fairly, who act swiftly, who act correctly and who are not constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering whether or not, when they do the right thing, they are offending some madness in some ethnicity action plan.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I certainly agree with all that the hon. and learned Member has said with regard to ethnicity.
In relation to the police, we have to commend those young officers who go out daily and put themselves in harm’s way to protect our community. However, does the hon. and learned Member agree that there is a real disconnect with the senior leadership of the PSNI with regard to community engagement? We only have to look at the weekend event in Scarva, when political representatives had to step in and ensure that the PSNI dealt with protesters in the same way—with equality—when they were dealing with a parade that was highly political, in which people were carrying “From the river to the sea” banners, which are highly offensive and constitute a hate crime. Does he agree that the PSNI needs training around dealing with the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community, and start to listen to their concerns on the ground, and engage with them on the issues that matter to them?
Jim Allister
I absolutely agree. I think that Saturday at Scarva was an object lesson in how not to do public order policing, because the mentality that seemed to infect all that was to inhibit, and even to seek to provoke—what I saw seemed to be of that order—those who were legitimately exercising a peaceful protest. Even in that regard, the changing of the designation and determination of the Parades Commission on when and where a protest was held seems to me to be ultra vires of the police powers that surround that. The police need to take a long, hard look at themselves in how they conducted those public order policing matters on Saturday.
Having said all that, we do need a police force. We need those who serve our community, but we need them to serve it even-handedly—to serve everyone with equality and not to have anyone think that they are above the law or, indeed, to have anyone perpetuated in that view by a pandering to them. There are lessons there to be learned.
Let us get a proper training course and training location for our police. Let us also get our numbers to where they should be. Chris Patten told us that we were to have 7,500 police officers. Today, I think we have 6,200. That is way short, and again I think that is a failure of the devolution of policing. Certainly, as Members of Parliament we would be in a much stronger position to really hold the Minister to account if policing had never been devolved. For me, this is confirmation of the folly of that action.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Mr Robinson, I know that due to duties in the Chamber you had, entirely properly, to arrive after the start of the debate; if you wish to speak, we can accommodate you.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
That is very kind of you, Sir. Roger. I had not planned on such a courtesy being extended. I place on record my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. Important debate though it is, it would have had much more importance had the Boundary Commission not taken Garnerville out of my constituency and placed it in his. Indeed, had Garnerville remained in Belfast East, I would have been championing its restoration and renewal rather than the creation of PSNI Redburn in Kinnegar.
As Northern Ireland parliamentarians and Members of this Parliament, this is an important opportunity for us to consider the right way we should invest in policing. Hon. colleagues have mentioned the recent programme “Peelers” as a visual demonstration of the pressure that our police service is under and the frailty of the funding model that they face. Devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland is not the primary concern. The primary concern is a police service that the Minister of Justice, although accountable for it, strips of resource. She then puts that resource into those direct parts of her Department, including the prison service, legal aid, court service and the Northern Ireland judiciary.
No other part of our criminal justice system has faced the same cuts that the PSNI has. Why? Because the PSNI, rightly and politically, is non-departmental. It does not have the same accounting mechanism, and the Minister of Justice does not have the same responsibility for it. In fact, the PSNI is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and not the Minister of Justice. The PSNI has been failed. It has been failed by a Minister who has been ill-prepared to prioritise policing and has prioritised those aspects of her Department for which she is wholly accountable. That is wrong. That has been an injustice and a disservice to the brave members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
On Sunday, I gathered with hundreds of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation at their 24th anniversary service in Armagh. They are proud, determined people—people who sacrifice. Widows were present, as were others who have sacrificed so much of their own lives to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As they kept the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary going on Sunday in Armagh, and do so every day of the week, it is incumbent on us, if we are interested in securing a legacy, to ensure the future of the police service in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me the opportunity to make that short contribution. I am full of acknowledgment and praise for the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the deeply troubling incident in north Belfast last night, in which a man was seriously injured in a knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue. My thoughts are with the victim and his family, the members of the public who attempted to stop the attack and the PSNI officers who responded. Those officers are precisely who this debate is about, and we should all be asking whether they have the support, resources and facilities that they deserve.
As we have heard, 25 years ago the Belfast agreement promised a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Out of that promise came the Patten commission, which led to the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as many Members have, that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, with day-to-day funding allocated by Stormont’s Department of Justice. This Parliament does not set the PSNI’s budget, but the UK Government are not disinterested observers. Responsibility for national security rests with Westminster: additional security funding and paramilitary crime taskforce funding are channelled from here, and Treasury decisions—including the refusal to meet Stormont’s reserve claim for the £119 million cost of the 2023 data breach—carry direct consequences.
The police college at Garnerville sits at the centre of all this, training every officer who joins the PSNI, and it exports that expertise to forces in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as well as internationally. Every PSNI officer carries a personal protection firearm, including when they are off-duty—something that applies nowhere else in UK policing, fortunately. The standing authority under Patten recommendation 65 has not been withdrawn because the threat has not gone away. The terrorism threat level was reduced from severe to substantial in March 2024, having been raised to severe following the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh in February 2023. The PSNI recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that there is no operational difference between the two threat levels: the posture, vigilance and resource commitment remain the same. No other policing workforce in the United Kingdom has to weigh the personal security implications for them and their families when simply deciding whether to join the police force.
The latest student officer recruitment figures, released in February this year, underline the scale of the challenge. The 2026 recruitment campaign received more than 4,100 applications, but that was down from more than 4,800 last year. Of those, nearly 27% identified as Catholic, against almost 29% the year before. The current intake runs at 51 student officers per month through Garnerville, barely keeping pace with the number of police leaving at the other end. Each of those officers completes the 22-week programme at a site that Patten identified as inadequate back in 1999. The PSNI told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the continuing terrorist threat, legacy perceptions and resource pressures are active barriers to recruitment from all communities. No training college can resolve those barriers alone, but a modern, accessible facility would at least stop them compounding.
It matters that Patten recommendation 131 remains undelivered. The Desertcreat project—a proposed shared police, fire and prison training facility in County Tyrone—was abandoned after costing more than £12 million without a building completed. As we have heard, the PSNI has since purchased the Kinnegar army base in Holywood, which it acquired from the Ministry of Defence for £4.9 million.
Gavin Robinson
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, because she is making a good speech with important information. She mentioned Patten recommendation 131 not being prioritised. People sometimes forget, but we should praise the fact that 1,000 members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wished to apply for 400 vacancies—that is a good and positive thing. However, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Patten report, which call on political leaders, community leaders, priests, Ministers and all with positions of influence to encourage engagement with, support for and recruitment to the PSNI, have not been honoured. Does she acknowledge that, sadly, far too many people today, particularly in senior positions of public leadership, will not engage with the police, encourage their community to participate with the police, or see policing as the great career of public service that it truly is?
Charlotte Cane
I agree that it is vital that everyone supports the PSNI and encourages people from across Northern Ireland to engage with it positively. One would hope that a good, modern training centre would help to present it as a good organisation to join.
To develop the site at Kinnegar, investment is needed. Patten recommended a new college 26 years ago, and although the Government accepted that recommendation, the PSNI is still waiting for one. Behind the college’s infrastructure problems sits a deeper funding failure: in real terms, the PSNI has 40% fewer resources than at devolution in 2010. Officer numbers stand at approximately 6,250—the lowest since the service was established—against the Patten recommendation of 7,500, as we have heard. Since 2014, the PSNI has incurred £167 million in legacy costs, with a further £24 million anticipated this year, drawn from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has recommended a dedicated, ringfenced funding stream for legacy obligations, separate from the operational policing budget that the Chief Constable has been asking for.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on counter-terrorism funding. ASF has been broadened to cover the same threat categories as the Home Office counter-terrorism grant, yet that grant reaches £1.2 billion in 2026-27 while ASF stands at £37.8 million. The Government may point to the Barnett formula, but Barnett allocates on population, not on threat. Even combined, Barnett and ASF do not account for a force in which every officer carries a firearm and 3,200 specialist security deployments took place in a single year. Will the Minister confirm whether ASF is allocated based on need or on population share? If it is the latter, do the Government accept that, even combined, Barnett and ASF fall short for a force with no equivalent anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
Secondly, on legacy, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will drive legacy costs higher still, and those costs continue to be met from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. Do the Government accept the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s recommendation for a dedicated, ringfenced funding system to meet those costs separately?
Thirdly, on the college itself, Kinnegar has been purchased, but its development depends on investment funding that has not yet been committed. Will the Government make a specific capital commitment to deliver a new police college for a service with training requirements that have no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force.
It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element.
I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland.
It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.
Alex Easton
The Labour party brought forward the Patten review and agreed to its recommendations. One recommendation was for a new policing college. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that commitment has not been fulfilled by this or previous Governments, and that this Government should honour it by providing the funding for a new policing college?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.
Jim Shannon
When the Conservatives were in power, they committed to a review of the moneys going to Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula, but nothing happened. When the Labour party came into power, a similar commitment was made. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) sit, recommended that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. Given all the commitments made by the previous Government and this Government, and as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is pushing for change, does the shadow Minister think that the Barnett formula needs to be reviewed and changed, to find the extra moneys to fund the police training college?
Alex Burghart
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers.
I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing the debate. He has campaigned on this long-standing issue for some time, having secured a debate in November last year on police funding, and he has also asked me oral questions. He is a persistent and powerful advocate for this case. I also thank him for the kind invitation to visit the site in his constituency—I think we now have an agreed date in August, and I look forward to that.
As others have set out, we are here following the horrific and sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast last night. Members will know that the Secretary of State addressed this matter at length in an urgent question in the House earlier today. I want to state that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Chief Constable, and I reiterate that he and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their important inquiries.
Those members of the public who stepped forward at immense risk to their own safety, intervening to protect the victim until the police arrived, deserve our gratitude for the extraordinary courage they showed. I also repeat the appeal not to share or repost the footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family. As others have said, we all now have a responsibility to urge calm and let the police do their job. As the Prime Minister said, there is no place for such violence on our streets.
Turning to the PSNI, we are indebted to those men and women who serve day in, day out to keep us, our families, friends and loved ones, our communities, the whole of Northern Ireland and—as the hon. Member for North Down said—the whole of the UK safe. Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society, which has radically changed policing in Northern Ireland since the PSNI was first established 25 years ago. However, we know there remains a small number who are determined to cause harm to our communities, and to our brave police officers, through acts of violence.
The risks faced by the police, as well as their bravery, were recently demonstrated to me by the attacks on Lurgan and Dunmurry police stations. I met many of those at the Dunmurry station in April, and I can only imagine the situation they faced as they selflessly helped evacuate local residents when the device exploded. However, it is not just national security threats that the police must deal with; they put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect the public. On 31 May a police officer was struck by a stolen police car in Downpatrick. As of Friday, I understand the officer remains in hospital receiving treatment for very serious injuries. My thoughts, and I am sure those of everyone in this debate, are with the officer and his family as we wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I know that we would all pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The importance of mental health for those who serve was mentioned earlier, and it was an important part of the conversation when I was at Dunmurry police station. For the officers, it is important to stand up and speak about the horrors they witness and how that impacts them, and I am conscious that it impacts not only them but their families. If our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters were going out and putting themselves in harm’s way every day and contending with the horrors that our police have to contend with, our mental health would also suffer, so that was a well-made point. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the police service in keeping our communities safe and, crucially, in holding those who commit criminal acts to account.
Turning to the development of the new PSNI training college, as the hon. Member for North Down set out in his powerful speech, the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in his constituency in March last year at a cost of £4.9 million. The existing training college is located at Garnerville, in Holywood, and was originally built in the 1950s as a local catering college, officially becoming a training centre for the RUC in 1986. It was subsequently taken over by the PSNI when it was formed in 2001. I understand that the PSNI sees new training facilities as a key part of its ambition to increase officer numbers to 7,500, which I welcome, as do others in the debate. An initial business case for £13 million was approved by the Executive to fund the acquisition and essential enabling works. The PSNI is now preparing a further business case for the next steps, with an estimated cost of over £200 million and an ambition to finish the works by 2033.
The Government recognise the financial pressures the PSNI faces. However, as has been stated, funding for the PSNI is largely a devolved matter, coming from the Department of Justice as part of the block grant for Northern Ireland, which I will come to later. The next steps for the development of the new training college, including securing further funding, are therefore a matter for the PSNI, the Policing Board and the Northern Ireland Executive. I am sure they will be listening to this debate and hearing the powerful points raised. It is important for the Executive to agree and deliver a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget.
Alex Easton
I thank the Minister for his speech. Does he not have concerns, as I do, that the Northern Ireland Executive cannot really agree on anything? By the time they do agree on something, 10 years will have elapsed and they will not have the training facility. Will the Minister commit to talking to the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister in the Executive, and to the Treasury, to try to find the funding to make sure this happens?
Matthew Patrick
I appreciate the frustration behind the hon. Member’s words about the time it is taking to secure the budget. I hear that and I will commit to raise with the Executive the training college he is advocating for, as we continue to press the importance of securing a multi-year and sustained balanced budget.
The October budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive in the last financial year. That is the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. It is clearly a matter for the Executive to make decisions on the allocation of resources in line with its own priorities, and it is therefore a matter for the Department of Justice to allocate that funding to the PSNI. How it is used is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.
It is not just the block grant that the UK Government support the PSNI with.
Jim Shannon
The facts of the matter are—to be fair, most people have mentioned it—that the PSNI budget has been affected by the legacy costs, which I understand are in excess of £200 million. That takes a big chunk out of the PSNI budget every year. Although we understand that the Barnett consequential and extra moneys will be given to Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully to the Minister, because I think much of him—the fact is that the PSNI is already £200 million down because of the legacy. Will he consider some other methodology for the legacy funding, which would take the burden away from the PSNI and enable it to put some of that money towards the training college?
Matthew Patrick
If it is okay with the hon. Member, I will come to that point later. I will definitely address it, and I invite him to intervene on me if I do not—I may live to regret that.
The PSNI was previously provided with £32 million a year in additional security funding. That had been static for almost 10 years, since the 2015-16 financial year. Upon coming into government, we increased that to £37.8 million. The UK Government are also investing £235 million in the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann
On the transformation funding, could the Minister clarify just how much the PSNI has got out of the pot he mentioned? I know that it has put in several bids.
Matthew Patrick
From the direct amount funded by the UK Government—there are separate bids that are being considered by the Executive—Justice is receiving £22.6 million. That is transforming the justice system, and I understand that it has already saved 4,000 hours of police time in the first year it has been introduced.
I will address some of the points made in the debate.
Robin Swann
I appreciate that it was Justice that received the money, but could the Minister clarify how much the PSNI actually received? When members of the Policing Board were in front of the Northern Affairs Committee, they informed us that they had made a number of specific bids through that pot.
Matthew Patrick
That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.
On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.
I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.
I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.
A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.
I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.
As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say. The NIO rarely ever exercises its powers when it comes to the Parades Commission—it can intervene, but it refuses to do so. The fundamental problem that arose on the weekend was that protesters could not adhere to the Parades Commission’s determination because somebody within the police decided, in their policing plan, to ensure that they blocked the very place where the commission said the protest should occur. That is the fundamental problem. If the Minister is to address this issue, as he is doing, he must give some consideration to the inability of lawful protesters to adhere to a lawful determination because of the actions of the PSNI.
Matthew Patrick
I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Securing locally agreed arrangements for managing parades in Northern Ireland is the best option for sustainable, long-term reform. The UK Government are committed to continuing to work with local parties and others to secure the restoration of those institutions. Until such time as alternative, locally agreed arrangements are forthcoming, the Parades Commission remains the only legally constituted body that can adjudicate contentious parades in Northern Ireland. Ensuring that communities in Northern Ireland can peacefully celebrate and demonstrate their culture in an environment of respect and tolerance is of the utmost importance.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
Jim Allister
Has it come to this? The Labour party-sponsored Patten report recommended 7,500 police officers and a new training centre. Do this Labour Government feel no connection or commitment to that? Are they happy to wash their hands of it?
Matthew Patrick
Not at all: I feel a connection and commitment. The way to deliver that commitment is to respect devolution and give a record financial settlement—more than at any time in the history of devolution—so that the Executive can make that determination. That is important, in terms of both showing respect and funding.
I again thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate and all right hon. and hon. Members for how it has been conducted. This year marks 25 years since the establishment of the PSNI, following the recommendation of the Patten review of policing. That is a significant milestone for the PSNI and for Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served in the PSNI for their tireless work in keeping people safe in Northern Ireland and across the UK.
It is right at this anniversary to take stock of policing in Northern Ireland and celebrate the dramatic improvement in the security situation over the past 25 years. As we do so, there is not an ounce of complacency in this room or this Government about the threat that still exists. As others have said, it is right to look back at the Patten review of policing, which was such a crucial step in realising the goals of the Good Friday agreement. Important recommendations made in the review had the commendable aim of creating a police service that could attract cross-community support and legitimacy. I understand that, according to the PSNI, around 90% of the Patten recommendations have been met.
One outstanding recommendation is the establishment of a new police training college. Progress is clearly being made in realising that goal; I suspect the hon. Member for North Down will be pushing that along each and every step of the way. Given that policing and justice are devolved—a Patten recommendation—the next steps for the establishment of the training college are for the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Department of Justice to determine. I am sure that they will have heard the powerful and compelling arguments in this debate about the importance of a new training college and the service it would give the PSNI in its duties to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and do its crucial work.
Let me reiterate the importance of the Executive agreeing and delivering a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget. The hon. Member for North Down has made a strong case for continued investment and development of the site in his constituency. Others have invited me to ask other Departments of this Government to step in. It is important to note that the money available to the Executive is a record settlement—more than at any point in the history of devolution. That gives the means to the Executive to make these decisions and to fund the Department of Justice and the PSNI as they see fit.
I believe that all the decision makers, whether the Policing Board, the Executive, the Department of Justice, the Chief Constable or the PSNI, will have heard, and not just in this debate, the calls for funding from the hon. Member for North Down and others. I am sure that we will also hear those calls in future debates.
Alex Easton
I thank each and every Member here today for their contributions, which are much appreciated. I particularly thank the Minister for his condemnation of the incident in Belfast last night and his praise of members of the public who stepped in to help the individual, who has a great debt of gratitude to them for their actions, as well as to the PSNI and the emergency services.
The choice is stark: the new policing college is going to cost £200 million. We have heard from the Minister that that is a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Justice Minister, the Finance Minister and so on. Let us face the uncomfortable truth: unfortunately, the Justice Minister has allowed PSNI numbers to fall well below 1,000. That has had an effect on morale and public confidence. The Department of Justice and the Executive just do not have £200 million—even if they did, the reality is that the Executive cannot agree on anything. I doubt very much whether they would agree on producing £200 million to build this college, which is much needed.
There is nothing more important than having a new police college to train the police officers we need. Without it, there will not be the proper facilities or training that are desperately needed for the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland—which, if we are totally honest, are more numerous than those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Unless the Northern Ireland Office and UK Treasury help with the funding of this vitally needed facility, I genuinely fear for the future of policing for Northern Ireland. I believe that unless there is an intervention, we could be back here in 10 years discussing this again. I do not know whether I will have been elected in 10 years’ time, but I do fear this debate will happen again.
The Minister has agreed to put pressure on the Executive, and I appreciate that, but can I make a last ask of him? Will he at least agree to set up a meeting with the Treasury, me and PSNI representation so that we can have the discussion? That does not mean that what I have asked for will happen, but will he agree to arrange a meeting as a first stage to discuss the issue and explore options?
Matthew Patrick
I will be happy to arrange a meeting between me, the hon. Gentleman and representatives about the issue that he just raised.
Alex Easton
That has made me more happy. I am now willing to wind down and thank everybody for coming today.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before we conclude, may I thank all hon. Members here for the tone of this debate and the courtesy with which it has been conducted? I only wish that more people saw the House behave like this, as it should.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.
Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I can remember the time I spent with my boys watching David Attenborough on TV, and now I spend it with my grandchildren, so the tradition carries on. The information and passion are shared between generations through the timeless quality of David Attenborough’s environmental work. Does the hon. Lady agree that now is the time to recognise this national treasure and that he deserves a permanent recognition as the best of British?
Johanna Baxter
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments.
It is little wonder that, in poll after poll, the British public have voted for Sir David as one of the most trusted voices in our country and one of the 100 greatest Brits. It started with a fossil. In the 1930s, Sir David found an ammonite that sparked a curiosity for the wonders of our natural world that still exists in him today. After winning a scholarship to the University of Cambridge in 1945, Sir David obtained a degree in natural sciences, before embarking on his long and remarkable career at the BBC.
When he first completed his training programme in 1952, television was a luxury for the few. Indeed, Sir David had never owned a television set when he was hired, yet by 1954, he had co-created and launched the “Zoo Quest” series, with the aim of showing animals live in their natural habitats, starting with the quest for a picathartes—a little bald African bird. That quest shifted the public’s imagination of what television could achieve and the wonders among which we live. Sir David has gone to the ends of the earth, to the depths of the ocean and into the upper atmosphere to capture those incredible images that have stunned and enthralled us all.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will be aware that David Attenborough’s brother Richard sadly passed away in 2014. I just wanted to share the last tweet that Lord Richard Attenborough put out on Twitter. He said he was very proud of his little brother, after David Attenborough received his BAFTA. I am sure that Richard Attenborough would have been very proud that my hon. Friend is having a debate about his little brother today.
Johanna Baxter
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves.
His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward.
Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Lady was talking about how Sir David has had a number of species named after him. Does she agree that, going forward, we should do more to name our green spaces, such as Rotary Wood in Harrogate, which was planted by children, after legends like Sir David Attenborough?
Johanna Baxter
That is a lovely idea.
In more recent years, Sir David’s voice shifted from one of wonder to fierce advocacy. He transitioned from our guide through the natural world to its ultimate champion on the world stage. For his historic address to COP24, the UN climate change conference in Poland in 2018, Sir David took up the People’s Seat, standing before representatives from nearly 200 nations to act as the voice of global citizens. His message was blistering in its clarity. He told world leaders:
“Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
He did not mince his words, nor did he hide behind diplomatic niceties. He used the trust that he had built over half a century to force the world to look into the abyss of its own inaction.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that seeing British leadership on the world stage like that fills us with such pride? We look forward to working together on that point. Perhaps a British monument by a British artist might be something to consider as we look to celebrate Sir David’s incredible achievements?
Johanna Baxter
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a monument, it should be by a British sculptor. We are filled with pride in Sir David every day.
He took his message even further in 2021, when he addressed the UN Security Council. Sir David reframed the climate crisis entirely, moving it from a scientific debate to an existential security threat. He warned the council that
“climate change is the biggest threat”
to global security
“that modern humans have ever faced.”
He told the council that if the natural systems that support us collapse, everything we take for granted—food and water security, social stability and international peace—will collapse with them. He challenged the most powerful leaders on earth to recognise that the map of the world is being rewritten by our own carbon emissions. Speaking at COP26 in Glasgow, he gave a stark warning on climate change and asked the haunting question:
“Is this how our story is due to end? A tale of the smartest species doomed by that all too human characteristic of failing to see the bigger picture in pursuit of short term goals.”
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says:
“Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.”
The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.
Johanna Baxter
I thank the hon. Member for those words. A living monument is a fantastic idea and Sir David certainly deserves our recognition and thanks. He has taught us that humanity’s greatness is found when we act as caretakers to our environment rather than consumers of it. He showed us that true leadership lies in what we choose to protect, understand and preserve. Yet when facing a cost of living crisis, the easy temptation for some is to fall back on the status quo and focus narrowly on drilling our natural resources. There is a danger in ignoring the warnings he delivered on the global stage and here on our doorstep.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that with such division and discord across many of our communities, this initiative crosses the political spectrum? Does she agree that Sir David Attenborough’s life’s work should be celebrated by all?
Johanna Baxter
I absolutely agree.
Despite the sheer scale of his global contribution, there is currently no permanent national monument dedicated to Sir David in the United Kingdom’s civic landscape. That is why I have secured this important debate. I am calling on the Government to work with me to address that absence through the creation of a carefully designed sculpture that will be installed in a prominent public location.
Over recent months, I have been working on this campaign with an incredibly talented sculptor, David Mitchell, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing us and for working alongside me. To be clear, the proposal would be entirely privately funded, with fundraising undertaken by cultural institutions, by charitable organisations and through voluntary public contributions.
I have built support among the public and colleagues across the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at 38 Degrees, who have worked with me on the campaign. The petition I launched with them has now received more than 89,000 signatures and the support of many colleagues. I have received many welcome suggestions on how best to pay tribute to Sir David. All of them have been incredibly thoughtful, illustrating the deep affection in which he is held. I have had suggestions to rename national forests and parks, and I am entirely open to working with all Members to explore those opportunities.
It is important that we permanently recognise Sir David’s legacy in a way that truly reflects the broad national admiration for his life and work. Some may ask why we require a physical monument in an increasingly digital world. The answer lies in what our public spaces say about our collective conscience. Civic statues are the ultimate expression of a nation’s values. Who we choose to set in stone and elevate on plinths tells our children and future generations who we want them to emulate. For generations, our public squares have rightly honoured great political leaders, monarchs and military figures who have guided our nation through the tumultuous chapters of our history. Those monuments tell a vital story, but as our society evolves, so too should the stories we choose to tell in our public space.
Today, our national pride is defined not just by how we navigated history, but how we are leading the world into a more sustainable and enlightened future. To have a monument to Sir David would be to enrich our civic architecture with symbols of modern British values: our deep respect for scientific truth, our love for the natural world and our shared responsibility to our planet. It would be an honour to a giant of education and conservation.
When a child looks up at that monument, they will see our values: the defence of our natural world and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as pillars of our national character. It would stand not only as a fitting tribute to an extraordinary individual, but as a lasting, visible symbol of Britain’s enduring commitment to science, education and environmental stewardship.
For more than 70 years, Sir David has used the power of his voice to show us the breathtaking beauty and terrifying fragility of our planet. He has spent a lifetime looking out for our world; it is time this nation looked up to him.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and an absolute pleasure to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who made a fantastic speech. She was exactly the right person to make it: no one in this place is more of a Sir David Attenborough superfan than she is. To confirm that, all anyone need do is to look at her Twitter history, her bookshelf or her DVD collection. I cannot hope to match her wonderful, in-depth speech, so I will just take a minute or two to make a couple of points.
The UK has a long tradition and a long history of recognising those who make a great contribution to public life. If there were no curtains on the windows of this Chamber, we would be able to see some of those figures outside. There are 12 statues in Parliament Square of some outstanding people who have made massive contributions to our national life, like Millicent Fawcett with the Suffragettes, Winston Churchill, who needs no explanation, and Nelson Mandela, whose achievements likewise need no explanation.
I believe that Sir David Attenborough fits within that bracket. In his centenary year, we should be thinking, “How do we honour and recognise that?” He has made an unbelievable, perhaps irreplaceable contribution to the way we think about animals and the natural world. He has given us a greater understanding—one that we did not have before. As I say, he is irreplaceable.
Sir David has encouraged us all to play our part in stewarding the natural environment. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, there are estates run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, which is creating one of England’s largest areas for nature. I encourage people to get behind the trust’s campaign, for which it is fundraising right now.
I am delighted to be partnering with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on this project, and I look forward to making it a success. I urge everyone across the House and across society, including the Government, to get behind this campaign to ensure that ultimately we can create a lasting and permanent memorial to Sir David Attenborough as our national treasure.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that a vote is expected at 4.30 pm.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.
Ian Murray
Your words, not mine, Sir Roger.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there.
Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today.
Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors.
Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change.
Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation.
We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling.
I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom.
Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls.
This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story.
Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words:
“Is this how our story is due to end?”
I very much doubt it.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber?
Question put and agreed to.
Summit on Illicit Finance
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are on the horns of a dilemma, because we expect a vote fairly imminently, but there is another wind-up speech to follow, so we will get started. There are likely to be three votes on the Floor of the House, then a pause before a fourth vote on Third Reading, and then possibly—sheer joy!—something after that, but let us get cracking and see how we go.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the illicit finance summit 2026, although it might be more accurate to say that we are debating the illicit finance summit that is just about in 2026, or the illicit finance summit that will probably be in 2026 if we are not too busy. I am glad that this debate is an excellent opportunity to remind the Government that they are supposed to be hosting this summit and to break the radio silence of the past few months.
Hundreds of billions of pounds of illicit finance flow through the UK annually. This is a major drain on our economy and a driver of criminality across society. Illicit finance touches every one of us and, on a daily basis, makes our lives that little bit worse. For those who are fed up with a dying high street in their town, with an endless stream of neon-clad vape shops, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are furious about dodgy donors ploughing money into political parties, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are tired of hearing politicians tell them that there is no money to keep our basic services functioning, illicit finance is making it worse.
The phrase “illicit finance” might not come up much on the doorstep, but “fairness” does. When it comes to people and organisations paying taxes, it does not get much more unfair than a system that makes it trivially easy for wealth to be hidden offshore but, bafflingly, still within His Majesty’s jurisdiction. It is not just tax that we are missing; illicit finance is funding criminality around the world. That is why I find it particularly difficult that this Government have put the summit six months into the future and that they sneaked out the news on a quiet Friday after the House has risen. My first ask of the Minister today is that he commit to greater engagement and candour with Members relating to the summit from now on.
All that aside, we must now look ahead to the summit. If the Government are to delay it, they had better make sure that it is effective and delivers real change. So far, we have heard very little from them on specific aims and priorities. The Minister told the House that he was personally committed to tackling illicit finance, and I hope that in today’s debate he will get some welcome support in finding some areas to report on.
I am pleased to remind the Minister that this debate is attended by MPs across the parties with serious expertise and experience in this area. The Government can see that this is a truly cross-party effort. We are not here to score points or win votes; we are here in the belief that we can make Britain better and free it from the scourge of illicit finance once and for all. I might briefly note that I am looking carefully and there is one particular party that is not represented here, and its Members’ attendance may or may not have indicated their interest in getting dodgy money out of our country and our politics, but I will do my part in helping the Government with a few ideas as to what could constitute a successful summit—[Interruption.]
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division on the Floor of the House. The sitting is suspended until 15 minutes after the start of what is likely to be the third Division in that group. Please do come back, because we think that there will be a pause between those Divisions and the vote on Third Reading.
Steff Aquarone
A quick recap: a gentle jibe at the Minister, a sharp poke at Reform and a commitment to doing my bit in helping the Government with a few ideas that might constitute a successful summit.
First, when many think of property in this country, they might think of the words of my predecessor as a Norfolk MP, Sir Edward Coke, about how an Englishman’s home is his castle. I am not sure whether Sir Edward foresaw so many being owned by a complex and secretive array of companies and trusts, lacking clarity about their ultimate beneficial owners.
Properties under secretive ownership are not only multimillion-pound mansions in Kensington; in fact, if many of us looked closer to home, we would be shocked by what we found. The Tax Policy Associates’ “Who secretly owns Britain?” map says that an unassuming cottage near the centre of the village of Cley next the Sea in my constituency is ultimately owned by a faceless company called Claystone Investments Ltd, registered in Switzerland. A Companies House search finds a similarly named company registered in the British Virgin Islands, which in turn gives its beneficial owner as a company registered in Panama. A search of the Panamanian company register gives no indication of who actually owns that cottage. That level of complexity and layers of ownership for a cottage in a quiet Norfolk village simply cannot be right.
This summit is a chance to call this out for being as ridiculous as it seems. The Government need to work with international partners to bring an end to anonymous property ownership. If an Englishman’s home truly is his castle, it cannot be a castle registered through multiple trusts, bouncing the legal rights halfway around the world and back again. If someone owns a property, they need to declare who they are and face the music, not hide behind shell companies and legalese.
It is also important that we get our own house in order on this. We have laws around beneficial ownership and property transparency, brought in under the last Government, with the help and hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and others. However, “Who secretly owns Britain?” indicates that rule-breaking is rife, and little seems to be being done to crack down on those flouting their obligations. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is looking into the wealth of publicly available evidence of companies not doing what they are required to do, and will take action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for this debate. He is absolutely right that we must aggressively pursue and prosecute the wealth managers, the lawyers and the accountants who mask dirty money through loopholes. Does he agree that, when it comes to corporate transparency, we must go as far as the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, that we need to take an aggressive stance, and that the Minister and this Government need to follow that?
Steff Aquarone
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, a past Government wrote to all those revealed by the Panama papers to ask them about their financial affairs. Might the Minister perhaps commit to doing the same for those shown not to be fully complying with beneficial ownership registration?
Speaking of getting our own house in order, naturally, I must turn to the overseas territories. When looking into opaque property ownership in my own area, I was sadly unsurprised to see that the British Virgin Islands were partly culpable for obscuring true beneficiaries. It is all well and good running a big international summit and talking a big game on transparency and fair taxation, but when we are allowing hundreds of billions in illicit finance to keep rolling through countries that fly our flag, rely on our defence and are citizens of our King, it looks as though we are not taking this issue seriously.
The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are part of our British family, but part of being a family is calling them out when they are doing wrong. So many are taking positive steps towards financial transparency, and their work will allow us to fight corruption and illicit finance more effectively, but there remain bad actors who are letting the side down. Their progress has been achingly slow, with deadlines missed, promises broken and beneficial ownership registers half delivered. The Government’s own anti-corruption champion recently said:
“I think we’re coming to the end of the road trying to do this through agreement”.
Such registers need to be free and publicly accessible. Restricting registers, or those behind payrolls with claims of legitimate interest, prevents journalists or non-governmental organisations—or even the interested public—from seeing who is truly behind these companies. We know that, in corruption and tax abuse, sunlight is the best disinfectant. For those malign actors who want to use existing secrecy to hide their ill-gotten gains, we have to smash that ability by ensuring that this information is freely available, just as is expected of anyone setting up or holding significant control in a company in this country.
I hope that the Minister can build on what Baroness Hodge has said and give a clear signal to us of the next steps that he is expecting to take if he has also, finally, run out of patience with these regimes. I can tell him and the House that most people ran out of patience long ago—hard-working, honest people who pay their way in what feels like an ever increasing tax burden. All the while, criminals, billionaires and dictators are seeing their dirty money flowing and growing, letting them live a life of luxury while we cobble together any penny that the Treasury can find to keep our public services afloat.
For those of us who are supporting the brave Ukrainians in their fight against Putin and his illegal war, we should be sickened that hundreds of private yacht transactions went on in overseas territories since the war began. Putin’s cronies, awash with blood money, are sunning themselves while Ukrainian people fight for their very future as a nation. While the Iranian regime represses protests and attacks our allies in the Gulf, the new Ayatollah has a multimillion pound mansion by Kensington Palace Gardens, just a short tube ride from here, which is one of the many ways he can launder wealth plundered from the people of Iran.
Illicit finance is a poison and cancer spreading through our country, infecting everything it touches. We have to get serious on this, and fast.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
For most people, illicit finance is most prevalent on our high streets, when they see illegal vape shops or barbershops that do not have any trade but seem to be doing quite well. Does my hon. Friend agree that illicit finance is not necessarily always in big mansions, and can often feel very close to home?
Steff Aquarone
I completely agree. This issue goes two ways: fighting crime overseas and tackling illegal activity in this country are both hindered by illicit finance.
The message from Government that those benefiting from their dirty money can have another six months of fun before we hold our summit is disappointing. I hope the Minister can take steps to correct that today by setting out an ambitious, far-reaching and impactful programme of work leading up to this summit, which will culminate in international agreement.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the international summit to crack down on fraudsters and scammers abroad? I have a constituent with disabilities who lost £70,000 to a romance fraud, with no checks having been done by the bank. Does the summit not also need to look at that issue?
Steff Aquarone
While there are certainly corporate victims of international illicit finance, it also affects us as taxpayers and as individuals. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for raising that case.
Turning a blind eye and washing our hands of responsibility has gone on too long. Britain has been a world leader in so much, so let us step up to the plate and lead the world once again in tackling this scourge, cleaning up our financial system, making the crooks and corporations pay their fair share and delivering justice and a fairer system once and for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I am looking around the room and at the time. I will not set a fixed time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to under five minutes, everybody on the list who wishes to speak will get in.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this vital debate, and on his comments about opaque property ownership. I said that this is a vital debate, but let us remind ourselves of the figures: £325 billion flows through the UK in illicit finance every year, which is more than 10% of this country’s GDP, and that figure rises to £780 billion annually when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are included, according to the Finance Innovation Lab.
In the short amount of time available, let me say this: when the summit comes, it will be a measure of our convening power with global south countries as we look to build to chairing the G20 in 2027. It will be an opportunity to harness the private sector’s technical expertise as a leading financial services hub. It will be a chance for our law enforcement agencies to share their knowledge, whether the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police, who I had the pleasure of visiting in their Guildhall offices only last week. On crypto, it will be an opportunity to encourage like-minded partners to roll out sanctions packages similar to the one that the Foreign Office recently launched for the A7 in Kyrgyzstan. I must commend the Minister for his leadership on that.
Illicit finance touches more or less every facet of our lives and is a national security issue. Some £10 billion is laundered through the UK each year, by people traffickers, drug gangs and organised crime groups, and £6 billion of trade with Russia has been facilitated by UK overseas territories companies since 2022, including through sanctioned goods. It is also an economic issue, though. Let us remember that £325 billion is linked to corruption cases involving UK-connected services and that, each year, £33.4 billion is lost by the UK and almost $500 billion is lost globally to tax abuse.
Illicit finance also distorts our property market, as we have already heard. Some £11 billion of suspicious wealth has been identified in UK property, and £1.5 billion of that was linked to individuals accused of financial crime or with connections to the Kremlin. It is also a transparency issue: £190 billion-worth of property has no clearly identified beneficial owner. We heard of the Norfolk cottage, but we all have properties in our constituencies up and down the country that are affected by this issue. There are 236,500 properties across England and Wales that are held through opaque trusts, and there have been £6 billion-worth of suspicious property purchases made via overseas territories shell companies, of which more than 90% went through the British Virgin Islands. That speaks to the scale of the issue at hand.
Illicit finance damages our global reputation, too. Unless we tackle the issue both here in the UK and in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, we will not address it in the full manner that it deserves to be addressed by all of us in this Chamber in order to do the right thing by my constituents. Let us recall the figures I mentioned at the start: each year, £788 billion flows through UK-linked systems, £10 billion is laundered and £33.4 billion is lost in UK tax revenue. The Minister knows those statistics and has heard me mention them time and again, but I am repeating them to drive home just how important this summit is, both to our country and around the globe, and to reiterate how crucial it is that we get the appropriate buy-in across Departments at the very top of Government.
Therefore, set against the backdrop of a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, a new economic crime plan being published later in the year and the Crown dependencies implementing greater transparency around their company registers in the coming month, I have two asks for the Minister. What can he say to reassure me that the rescheduled illicit finance summit will be the genuine cross-Government priority it deserves to be, and that this Government will drive global leadership on the all-encompassing issue of illicit finance? Secondly, somewhat at a tangent, after some concerning reporting by Bloomberg about the potential return of golden visas, can the Minister reassure me that his Department will work with the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office to ensure that this Government never introduce a loophole that allows oligarchs and kleptocrats to buy their way into the UK?
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)—I agree with every word of his speech—and to congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who introduced this debate, on what he had to say.
There is a feeling of all-party agreement on this issue, which is perhaps not surprising, because we will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the decision made by Parliament that, unless open registers of beneficial ownership are accepted and implemented by the overseas territories, the British Government will enforce them, as is their right. It has taken nearly 10 years; I think that it was 2018 when I and others led a rebellion against our own Government to get this in, and the Government conceded. It was the right thing to do, and it is all taking far too long. The reason we have not made progress is partly a mixture of inertia, crowded agendas and vested interests, but the Government need to confront it at this summit with all possible vigour. The Minister was kind enough to call me to explain why the summit had been delayed. I completely accept his argument, but we must use the delay period to make sure that it is all the more effective.
The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned the figure of nearly £800 billion, which shows that in Britain, when it comes to dirty money, we have a real dog in the fight. Remember what this money is: money from cyber-crime, the drugs trade and the sex trade, and money stolen from Africa and Africans. We say to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are in exactly the same boat, that if they want to have the British flag, our laws and our sovereign, they must also accept our values.
The list of offenders so kindly produced by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax’s beneficial ownership tracker is very clear: Montserrat, St Helena and in particular Gibraltar are to be congratulated on what they have done; the Cayman Islands have made some progress but are certainly not there yet; Bermuda, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands are marked as “poor”; and there at the bottom—“critically poor”—is the chief, but not the only offender, the British Virgin Islands.
These issues must be dealt with. On Guernsey and Jersey, and to a lesser extent on the Isle of Man, we need specific, time-bound commitments by the time of the British G20 summit so that we can hold our heads up. The scale of dirty money going through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies is absolutely appalling, and we need to clean up our act.
Finally, I endorse the asks from the APPG: the ending of anonymous ownership of UK property, which has already been raised and is extremely important; the recovery and return of stolen assets, particularly those from Africa, which I have mentioned to the House many times in the past; and the bearing down on professional enablers. We need to ensure that such bureaucratic change as we might then introduce does not harm honest practitioners. There is work to be done on that, but in principle we should do everything we can to stop professional enablers from behaving badly in this area.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on restricting himself to only two mentions of mansions in Kensington in his introduction.
This should be one of the progressive causes of our time. Others have covered the harms: from the links to the drugs trade and other serious organised crime, to the housing crisis and to conflict in Ukraine, Sudan and other parts of the world. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem and have taken action to date, including their commitment to host this summit on illicit finance.
I disagree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk; I think it was the right decision to delay the summit. Primarily, that is because it gives us time to produce a package of progress that we can show to the world, build alliances around key themes and link this summit to the UK Government’s other international leadership positions, including the G20 presidency in 2027, the presidency of the financial action taskforce from 2026 to 2028, and the chair of the Open Government Partnership. Those are all forums where we can take illicit finance and corruption initiatives and multilateralise them through other international organisations.
There is a big opportunity here. Before being elected, I spent a decade working on illicit finance and corruption. I supported the last summit on anti-corruption that we led as a country in 2016, which was hosted by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. That summit helped to put beneficial ownership transparency on the map as a tool to remove secrecy from the anonymous companies that, on many occasions, facilitate money laundering. There is an unheralded British success here: 104 jurisdictions now have a live register, although I accept that there are varying degrees of openness. There is, of course, the glaring exception of most of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
The lessons of the summit can be applied to December’s summit. First, as others have mentioned, there is the need for political leadership, from the Prime Minister down, to bring international counterparts to the UK and to link the summit to other international forums in which we are involved. Secondly, there should be strong cross-Government co-ordination, with regular ministerial meetings. Thirdly, there should be clear and specific policy commitments that other countries can join, rather than vague initiatives that will fizzle out immediately. Fourthly, we must be open to working with civil society, which can support the bringing of countries to the table and add ideas, enthusiasm and accountability to the summit. Fifthly, we must prepare our own package of reforms so that we open the summit with a strong policy offer.
We have an outsize responsibility in this area because we are the epicentre of global finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has covered the stats, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue. I have three brief policy proposals on which we can make progress before the summit.
The first proposal is about property, which the Government are right to make a summit priority. The goal should be a global alliance for full transparency in property ownership, so that dirty money cannot be stashed in London or in other property markets around this country and the world. In my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, 40% of the foreign-owned property is still held in anonymous trusts. That means that approximately 4,000 properties in my constituency have hidden ownership, despite the introduction of a register of overseas-owned properties after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
There is a major loophole that is incentivising more opaque ownership structures, which have only been thrown open through leaks and investigations such as the Panama and Paradise papers investigations. Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer, found that the ultimate owners of 45,000 properties in this country—properties collectively worth £190 billion—are still hidden from view. It is time to report back on the consultation opened two years ago on trust-owned property and to take bold action. Of course, beyond property there is a need to continue Britain’s leadership on beneficial ownership, the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) has outlined. That is absolutely the right place to start with our leadership in the global jigsaw. Gibraltar has done this work with no economic harm whatever and we need to extend it.
Finally, on professional enablers, I am really glad that the Financial Services and Markets Bill was in the King’s Speech. That will extend the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision to accountants, lawyers and other financial bodies, and introduce proper anti-money laundering supervision to them.
There must be no more anonymously owned properties, which allow dirty money to be stashed with impunity; no more tax haven secrecy, which facilitates billions in criminal and corrupt cash; and no more hiding places for professional enablers, who turn a blind eye to dirty money. Those ideas should be the basis for a summit that can show our leadership on the global stage.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a summit on tackling illicit financial flows, but it is essential that more political priority is given to this issue and that the UK shows more leadership in this space. If the summit is to be a success, we need to put our own house in order and play a critical role in helping to clean up the global financial system. We must also clean up the influence of dirty money, which infests our politics and the fabric of our country.
The UK plays a core part in this issue, particularly due to the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating these flows. As we have already heard, if we include the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is calculated that £788 billion of illicit finance from financial crime, money laundering, corruption, illegal trade and tax abuse flows through the UK and its territories every single year. That is a huge problem.
I was particularly struck by the calculation from Tax Justice UK that the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for about a quarter of revenues worldwide lost due to tax abuse. That is extraordinary. We represent less than 1% of the global population. Our economy, depending on how it is measured—purchasing power parity or not—is between 2% and 3% of the global economy, yet we are facilitating 25% of global tax abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable. I welcome the commitment from Members across the Chamber today to tackling that. I very much hope that we will hear strong words, followed by strong action, from the Government today and in the summit.
It is crucial that we have full transparency over property ownership and beneficial ownership. It is crucial that registers are fully accessible to everybody and are not just, as has been suggested by some territories, accessible only to certain people at certain times—pre-qualified, with notifications being sent to owners that people are looking into their affairs. Transparency is a fundamental principle, and it is essential to prevent the abuses that we know the system of secrecy actively enables. I very much hope to see strong action from the Government on that at the upcoming summit.
It is also crucial that the summit recognises that tax abuse includes both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The UK economy loses tens of billions of pounds each year, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned.
Joe Powell
I appreciate the cross-party spirit in which this debate has been held, but it would be helpful if the Green party leader would pay his own council tax as a demonstration of leading by example.
Dr Chowns
I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world.
I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade. I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally.
The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world. The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and for his excellent speech. I agreed with all the speeches made by colleagues today, and I do not get to say that very often. We have had some fantastic contributions.
For too long, the UK has been seen not only as a victim of illicit finance, but a destination for it. Dirty money has flowed through property markets, financial institutions and networks of shell companies. We have seen widespread tax avoidance while ordinary working people continue to do the right thing and pay their taxes every month. People look at that imbalance and ask an important question: why is it that those who play by the rules are expected to shoulder the burden while others are able to hide wealth behind secrecy and weak enforcement? Every pound lost is a pound that cannot be invested in our NHS, schools, social care system and local communities. It is money that cannot be used to recruit nurses, support teachers, improve public transport or rebuild the local services that people rely on every day.
Illicit finance does not simply deprive us of important public revenue; it actively reshapes our economy in very damaging ways. Nowhere is that more visible than in the housing market. Vast quantities of suspect wealth have flowed into UK property. We have already heard about million-pound mansions in Kensington, but it extends as far as entire new apartment blocks being bought by foreign investors in shell companies, with no notion of who they are and why they are investing here in the UK. It is a vehicle within which wealth can be stored and concealed rather than places for people to live. The result is higher prices, reduced affordability and a market that too often rewards speculation over social need.
That is why transparency—an important word that has come up today—must be at the heart of our response as a Government and this upcoming summit. No individual should be able to own property in the United Kingdom without their ultimate beneficial ownership being disclosed, verified and recorded on a public register. If ownership cannot be established transparently, that asset should not be capable of being bought, sold or transferred within the UK market.
I agree with colleagues’ comments on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I do not want to reiterate their arguments, but our Government must establish a fully public and independently verified register of beneficial ownership covering all UK land and property, including assets held through trusts and nominee arrangements.
Companies House must be transformed from a passive registrar into an active gatekeeper with the powers and resources necessary to verify company directors, beneficial owners and corporate filings before companies can operate within our economy. The Land Registry, Companies House and the National Crime Agency should be given stronger powers to investigate opaque ownership structures and pursue wrongdoing wherever it occurs.
We know, however, that rules are not enough; enforcement matters too. Agencies tasked with tackling economic crime remain significantly outmatched by and under-resourced for the scale of the challenge they face. Long-term investment is desperately needed in specialist law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Such investment could be funded in part, perhaps, through stronger economic crime levies on major financial institutions, asset recovery and financial penalties. We should also expand the use of unexplained wealth orders and remove the legal cost barriers that have too often discouraged their use.
We must also confront those who enable financial wrongdoing. The vast majority of lawyers—I was one—accountants and financial professionals act responsibly but, if individuals facilitate illicit activity, there must be meaningful consequences. Equally, we need stronger legislation against SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to protect journalists, researchers and campaigners who, in the public interest, expose corruption and financial misconduct. Illicit finance does not respect national borders, so the UK must lead international efforts to improve transparency, tackle offshore secrecy and strengthen co-operation between Governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies.
This issue is ultimately about the kind of country that we want to be. Do we accept an economy where secrecy, wealth and influence can buy special treatment, or do we believe that everyone should contribute fairly to the society from which they benefit? I know that everybody in this room sees society in the same way that I do, because most people understand that very simple principle. When everyone pays their fair share, we can properly fund the public services that bind us together and invest in the future of our communities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I join right hon. and hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this vital and timely debate, as well as for his broader work on illicit finance. I also thank the APPG for its work.
The illicit finance summit 2026 presents a significant opportunity for the United Kingdom to demonstrate leadership in tackling corruption, money laundering and the flow of dirty money around the world. The Government’s decision to delay the summit from June to December has understandably raised concerns and is certainly disappointing. However, we now have a second chance to get it right. The additional time should not be wasted, because illicit finance is not a victimless crime. It funds organised crime, human trafficking, corruption, sanctions evasion and hostile state activity such as Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. It undermines confidence in democratic institutions and deprives countries, particularly developing nations, of resources needed for schools, hospitals and economic growth. As has been widely stated in this debate, recent analysis estimates that up to £788 billion in illicit finance flows through the UK, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies each year. That should concern every Member of the House.
As a Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee I have heard repeatedly that the challenge is now not necessarily the lack of legislation, so the priority must be implementation, enforcement and closure of the remaining loopholes that allow illicit finance to continue to flow through the global financial system. Enforcement remains a particular concern. Despite progress in freezing criminal assets, they are not being recovered at a sufficiently high rate. Current estimates suggest that only £1 in every £4 of frozen criminal assets is ultimately recovered. That is money that should be returned to the public purse, used to compensate victims and reinvested in the fight against organised crime and corruption. The summit must therefore focus on not only identifying illicit wealth, but ensuring that enforcement agencies have the powers, the resources and—importantly—the international co-operation necessary to recover it.
As several hon. Members have highlighted, beneficial ownership transparency is an area where progress is required. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s ambition to improve transparency across the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We welcome the progress already made in places such as Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena. However, more needs to be done. That should not be approached confrontationally. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are valued partners. Many have taken meaningful steps forward. The role of the UK should be to engage constructively, to provide support where needed and to work together to ensure that meaningful access to beneficial ownership and corporate information is in line with international standards. That means achieving transparency that meets, at a minimum, standards comparable to those required under the EU framework. It is also important that we recognise the economic realities faced by some of those jurisdictions. Financial services play a significant role in their economies. If we want proper, lasting reform we must help to support economic diversification and resilience so that transparency and prosperity go hand in hand.
The UK will assume the G20 presidency immediately after the summit takes place. We will also take on the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force, the world’s leading anti-money laundering body. We therefore have a unique opportunity to shape the international agenda. The summit must deliver concrete commitments that include stronger international information sharing, improved asset-recovery arrangements, enhanced co-operation on cryptocurrency regulation, and greater transparency on property ownership. International co-operation will be essential if we are to tackle criminal networks that operate across borders, move assets between jurisdictions and exploit gaps between national regulatory systems.
The summit must also address the growing threat posed by cryptocurrency and other digital assets. We have already seen evidence of cryptoassets being used to evade sanctions and move money across borders beyond the reach of traditional financial controls. Criminal networks and hostile actors adapt quickly; regulators and Governments must do the same. That is another area where international co-operation is indispensable, allowing Governments, regulators and financial institutions to share intelligence rapidly and respond to emerging threats before they become entrenched. The success of the summit will be measured by whether it creates momentum that continues through the UK’s G20 presidency, our leadership of the FATF and beyond.
We must also reflect the priorities of the countries most affected by illicit finance. Too often developing countries lose billions through corruption, tax abuse and illicit financial flows, while also having the fewest resources to tackle those issues. Ultimately, this matter is about more than financial regulation; it is about national security, economic fairness and defending democracy and public trust. It is about ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a leader on the world stage.
The delay of the summit was disappointing, but the Liberal Democrats believe it has created an opportunity and a rare second chance. I hope the Government will use the months ahead wisely.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing a debate on an issue of significant importance to the UK’s national security and economic integrity.
There is clearly broad agreement across the House that illicit finance fuels corruption, organised crime, hostile state activity and conflict around the world. Dirty money undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and threatens our security at home and abroad.
The last Conservative Government took important steps to strengthen transparency, tackle economic crime and improve international co-operation, as my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. Under David Cameron’s leadership as both Prime Minister and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the UK was at the forefront of the global anti-corruption agenda, convening the first of its kind anti-corruption summit in 2016, and driving greater international focus on beneficial ownership, transparency and the recovery of stolen assets.
I am proud that when in government my party strengthened sanctions enforcement following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and sought to close loopholes that allowed illicit finance to flow through international financial systems. Against that backdrop, I welcome the Government’s commitment to host the illicit finance summit later this year. The Government have said that the summit will focus on global enforcement, asset recovery, illicit gold trading, property-based money laundering and the misuse of cryptoassets. Those are important priorities and areas where international co-operation is absolutely essential.
However, the success of any summit will ultimately be judged not simply by what is happening, but by the practical outcomes that it delivers. I have a number of the questions for the Minister. On Russia, what specific proposals will the Government bring forward to strengthen sanctions enforcement and close the remaining loopholes that enable sanction circumvention? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current enforcement mechanisms and what further action is being considered to target the networks and the intermediaries that continue to facilitate the movement of illicit Russian funds?
It is in that context that I raise concerns that the Government, in recent weeks, have quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian oil refined in third countries. Can the Minister explain what rationale justifies that decision when the Ukraine sanctions commissioner has directly told us that the Government’s actions
“may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”?
On Iran, illicit finance remains central to the regime’s ability to fund destabilising activities across the middle east. What discussions will take place at the summit on disrupting Iranian financial networks and strengthening international co-operation against sanctions evasion by the Iranian regime and its proxies?
The Government have rightly highlighted the importance of international partnerships. The Minister will know that the overseas territories play a vital role in supporting our economic interests and the global financial system. Can he update the House on the discussions that are taking place with the overseas territories’ Governments ahead of the summit?
Can the Minister also explain how the recent restructuring in the FCDO affects the UK’s ability to tackle illicit finance internationally? What assessment has been made of whether the FCDO currently has the resources necessary to meet the ambitions his Government have set out for the summit? Finally, what legacy does he expect this summit to leave behind? I raise that question because the 2016 anti-corruption summit and the work that followed helped to establish a framework for international action that endured well beyond the event itself. It is important that this summit has a legacy, too.
The Opposition support robust action against illicit finance and efforts to strengthen sanction enforcement, to combat corruption and protect the integrity of the international financial system. We want the UK to remain a global leader in this field, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Government intend to translate the ambitions of the summit into meaningful and lasting action.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing the debate, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. It has been a thoughtful and important discussion on an issue that goes to the heart of our national security, our prosperity and our values.
I can reassure the House that this Government are determined to tackle dirty money both at home and internationally, and that it remains a key priority. Hosting the illicit finance summit in 2026 is a central part of that commitment, which we will deliver on. We need to do that because illicit finance, as many Members have pointed out, fuels organised crime, corruption and conflict, enables kleptocrats to hide stolen wealth, undermines economic growth and weakens democratic institutions here and abroad.
Crucially, as was rightly pointed out by a number of Members, it directly affects people here in the UK, from fraud and scams to criminality on our streets, as shown so excellently by the examples given by right hon. and hon. Members in relation to their constituents. Indeed, as a global financial centre, we also have a responsibility to lead international efforts in this field to tackle this threat.
I appreciate the cross-party nature of today’s debate. Of course, one party is not here. What a surprise—Reform is absent yet again. I will let hon. Members draw their own conclusions from that.
The summit will be a major opportunity to drive international action. The aim is to bring together countries, international organisations, civil society, private sector experts, researchers and others to tackle dirty money around the world. I was asked a number of times about the objectives of the summit, which are very clear—to expose the scale and harm of illicit finance, to forge new partnerships, to share intelligence, to strengthen enforcement and, crucially, to secure concrete commitments for the future that close the gaps exploited by criminals and others who seek to undermine our society’s economies.
We will strengthen global enforcement against illicit finance through new partnerships on, for example, information sharing and asset recovery, which also came up. The summit will also help us to agree actions to tackle channels for dirty money, including money laundering in the property sector, which was rightly raised, the misuse of cryptoassets and, as was rightly referenced in relation to Sudan and other locations, trade in illicit gold.
There is no great conspiracy around the change in the date. As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and other colleagues know, there is often complexity when it comes to the diaries of Ministers and others whose attendance we want to secure at these summits. It will take place in December, and we will announce the exact date in due course.
It is crucial that we have a successful summit and have the right people there, and that we can demonstrate our own leadership on a number of key topics. I appreciate the welcome from many hon. Members who understand that it is better to have a summit that is successful and that has the right people than one that is, perhaps, not all it could be. That is why we took the decision; it was not taken lightly. I will keep the House updated on the preparations in due course.
I was asked a number of times what the Government are doing on this domestically, which is obviously crucial. This is not just an agenda for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it is also for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade and many other agencies, as well as our law enforcement agencies. The economic crime Acts protect our open economy and strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. We have built on the Acts to enable further progress. In October, the Chancellor announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take supervision of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing in professional services firms—another theme of the debate. That will replace a system that previously involved 22 different private sector bodies. It is better that that is brought together and focused to simplify the system and strengthen our defences. The Chancellor announced an increase to the economic crime levy rates—this was also referred to by hon. Members—which will raise an additional £110 million a year to boost law enforcement staffing and technology, and support public-private data sharing and financial intelligence to target criminal activity.
There is, of course, much more to do, and I accept that challenge. We set out further ambitions in the UK’s anti-corruption strategy, which was published in December. That important document included an additional £15 million to expand the domestic corruption unit and improve investigation—the shadow Minister asked about the resourcing across Government and agencies for that. This does not mean that we cannot do more; we will always seek to bring more effort to bear on this. It is important that this is a cross-Government and cross-Agency effort, and that it is not just one Department. We are also working on a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy to strengthen our response.
We also have to focus on international co-operation. It is not within the abilities of one country alone to tackle this; it is huge, and the sums referred to by right hon. and hon. Members were staggering. We are using a range of measures on everything from sanctions to exposures of different networks that are moving money around, particularly in new technological ways; for example, by using crypto. As an example of that, colleagues will be aware that in October 2025 and March 2026 we sanctioned the Prince Group and its enablers. It is responsible for a huge network of scam centres in south-east Asia that exploit trafficked workers to defraud victims on a global scale, including on the streets here in the United Kingdom and undoubtedly in every one of our constituencies. Our sanctions froze £127 million-worth of UK property and triggered a wave of investigations and arrests across the region. We also launched the world’s first dedicated sanctions regime targeting irregular migration. And we did not stop there: at the Berlin process summit, we targeted a number of entities including criminal gangs that are driving people smuggling across the western Balkans.
We are also working through bodies such as the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which has identified and frozen billions of pounds of stolen assets globally. We are looking at every way in which evasion is going on and new networks are being used, which includes the evasion of Russian sanctions by those exploiting cryptoassets and complex financial routes. Members will have seen our announcements in recent weeks on that as well as the closing down of crypto exchanges and other means by which illicit finance is being used to fuel the war in Ukraine. That is on top of the National Crime Agency’s Operation Destabilise, which exposed and disrupted high-harm Russian money laundering networks supporting serious and organised crime around the world. That led to 84 arrests—many are already serving prison sentences—and we seized over £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency. That is tangible progress that is being made, which is important to reflect on. I pay tribute to all the law enforcement officers and experts who were involved in that.
Members have rightly raised points about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I have spoken about that issue on many occasions in this House, and Members will have heard what the Justice Minister and, indeed, the anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said in relation to the Crown dependencies. As I am also Minister for overseas territories, I am glad that there was recognition of the progress made in Gibraltar, Saint Helena, Montserrat. We have legitimate interest to access registers in the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands; progress has also been made in Anguilla. However, I recognise the serious concerns that colleagues have raised about whether some of the measures go far enough. I am in regular dialogue with the elected Governments in the overseas territories, and I have made clear the progress that we expect to make and our disappointment at some of the backsliding we have seen.
One location that came up in many right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches is the British Virgin Islands. I want to reassure colleagues that I have raised those concerns directly with the Premier and other agencies in the British Virgin Islands in recent weeks. All options remain on the table if we do not see the sort of progress that we need, because, as been rightly pointed out, this is an issue not only about financial transparency and global economic stability, but about the national security of this country and the global British family. When it comes to the threats posed by Russia, Iran and many other malevolent actors—let alone serious and organised crime—we have to adhere to the highest standards. I have conveyed that to the Premier and the authorities in BVI in the strongest terms and I will update the House in due course.
I have said a lot about the action in relation to Russia, which the shadow Minister asked me about, but she also asked about Iran. We have a range of measures in this regard: ramping up disruptions of UK-connected Iranian networks, increasing enforcement actions against Iranian organised crime and sanctions-circumvention networks and indeed dissolving companies registered in the UK for facilitating financing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The shadow Minister also asked about the related sanctions issue. To be very clear, we are not watering down existing sanctions; we are introducing new sanctions in relation to refined oil and liquefied natural gas, but naturally with a phased-in strategy to ensure that we can wind down existing contracts and others. I can assure hon. Members that that is under regular review, and that we certainly do not want to see Putin or his regime gain any kind of bonanza from this.
We have been clear from the start that we are doing a huge amount to tackle the issue of asset recovery. In fact, in 2024-25, asset recovery from proceeds of crime was up by 31%, with £284.5 million recovered. We continue to be very ambitious in those strategies.
We are also doing a huge amount, as I said, on the enablers—that was touched on by a number of people—and that new approach by the FCA will ensure that we have the powers to take a coherent, effective and impactful approach to supervision.
In the remaining time—I am trying to work out how long I have, Sir Roger; I will keep going until you shout “Order”—the hon. Member for North Norfolk quite rightly asked what we are doing with people who fail to comply. Let me be clear on that: verification of directors and persons with significant control is mandatory. Individuals who fail to comply in this country may face financial penalties, disqualification or, indeed, criminal sanctions.
We are also clear that overseas entities on the UK register of overseas entities and register of persons with significant control must comply with our beneficial ownership requirements. We are taking every step possible. Of course, it is for enforcement agencies to follow up on these things, but we are very clear on this, and Companies House is actively identifying non-compliance and working with partners across Government and law enforcement to ensure that entities meet their obligations.
If I have not replied to any specific points, I am very happy to write to hon. Members afterwards, but, in conclusion, I want to reassure Members that this remains a major priority. This summit will happen, and it will have tangible, important announcements to make about our commitment here at home and about what we are doing overseas. We will make sure that that has a legacy that impacts into the future, particularly as we enter an important year regarding the G20. I thank everybody for their contributions.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister for his responses, and all Members and hon. Members for their contributions. I will just reiterate what I said earlier: this is not a popular cause on the doorstep, but it is the right thing to do. I feel like I have become a recent member of a noble, long-standing cause, which I welcome, and for which I am grateful. I reiterate my offer to the Minister to support his initiatives. Lastly, I will just say, let us consider the brief, summarised conclusions of Margaret Hodge: it might be time to drop the carrot and start to use the stick.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026.
Written Statements
Companies House Accounts Reforms
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 included measures to reform how companies report information and what information they report when filing their annual accounts with Companies House.
The reforms include:
Requiring small companies and micro entities to file profit and loss accounts with Companies House as other companies do;
removing the option for companies to file abridged accounts;
a strengthened eligibility statement for all companies claiming an audit exemption;
the ability for the registrar to require all companies to file accounts via software—using inline extensible business reporting language (iXBRL) format; and
requiring component parts of the filed accounts and reports to all be filed together.
We also plan to bring forward secondary legislation to reduce the number of times a company can shorten its accounting reference period and introduce annotations to the register where a company has not complied with a notice regarding compliance of its accounts with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
ECCTA 2023 also included a requirement for small companies to file a directors’ report. However, as part of the Government’s modernising of corporate reporting programme, the Government announced that we will remove the requirement for any company to produce a directors’ report as part of their annual report and accounts. This change will therefore no longer apply.
The accounts reforms seek to improve the transparency, accuracy and reliability of data on the companies register, to inform business decisions, modernise practices in line with other countries, and tackle economic crime.
In June 2025, Companies House communicated that the reforms would be implemented in April 2027. This sparked some concern about the impact some of the reforms might have on businesses. As a result, we paused implementation to take time to engage with a range of stakeholders.
We have listened carefully to stakeholders’ concerns and after some consideration have taken the decision to proceed with the reforms, but with two changes.
First, we are proceeding with requiring small companies and micro-entities to file profit and loss accounts, but they will be able to opt out of having these published on the public register. We have taken this decision in response to concerns from the business and investment community around the commercial risks for smaller companies of disclosing this information, and the potential impact on investment opportunities.
Details of how smaller companies can opt out of publication will be confirmed in due course. Companies who wish to enjoy the benefits of publication, such as improved access to finance and enhanced transparency, can still do so.
Where a company opts out of publishing their profit and loss accounts, Companies House, law enforcement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will still have access to identify and tackle fraud, economic crime and tax evasion.
Second, to give companies and software providers more time to prepare, we will postpone implementing these reforms by one year, from April 2027 to April 2028.
We will also proceed with mandating accounts filing in iXBRL format from April 2028. This will improve the quality of financial data for register users and provide more opportunities over time for companies’ accounts data to be aggregated, compared and subjected to analysis in different ways for use more widely.
We will continue to engage with stakeholders as we prepare the necessary secondary legislation and proceed to implement these important reforms.
[HCWS94]
Employment Right Act Implementation: Unpaid Carers and Time off for Public Duties Consultations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Once implemented, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, raise living standards across the country and level the playing field for those businesses who are engaged in good practices. There are clear, evidence-based benefits of Government action through the Act. Not acting would mean a continuation of the current issues within the labour market: poor working conditions, proliferation of insecure work, growing inequalities, and fractious industrial relations.
Over 18 million employees will benefit from new protections, but it will be those who are lowest paid in the labour market, in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail, that will benefit most. Our analysis, using UK and international evidence alongside economic modelling, finds that the Act will help boost employment, and improve job quality and productivity, while having a positive direct impact on economic growth.
Our latest delivery timelines demonstrate this Government’s commitment to delivering these reforms at pace, while giving businesses and workers time to get ready. April 2026 saw the delivery of significant changes that workers will now benefit from, including:
Strengthened rights to statutory sick pay, including expanding eligibility to up to 1.3 million of the most vulnerable workers who previously earned below the lower earnings limit and making it available from the first day of illness rather than the fourth day, meaning workers do not need to choose between working and getting better, improving workplace productivity and reducing the spread of infections in the workplace.
The introduction of day one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, ensuring new parents are able to spend time with their families.
The launch of the Fair Work Agency, a new body that brings together the patchwork of state enforcement of workers’ rights in one place, with plans to further expand its remit.
This week the Government will publish two consultations to continue our work in delivering these changes for all. Further details are outlined below. Today we are publishing a consultation on the employment rights of unpaid carers, and on 12 June a consultation on time off for public duties.
Consultation 1: Unpaid carers
Unpaid carers play a vital role in supporting their loved ones, and this Government recognise the enormous contribution they make to their families and communities, and to wider society. We are aware that too many unpaid carers struggle to combine work with their caring responsibilities. In the plan to make work pay, we committed to reviewing the implementation of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and examining the benefits of paid carer’s leave, while being mindful of the impacts on businesses. We set this out in more detail in November 2025 through our terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers.
To build on the work of the review so far, we are launching a consultation that seeks views on whether there is more that Government should do. It considers several approaches such as improvements to guidance and communications, and new statutory leave entitlements for unpaid carers. It also asks questions on support for parents of seriously ill children in recognition of the acute challenges that arise for families following a diagnosis of serious or life-threatening illness during childhood, as we committed to do during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.
We will analyse all consultation responses and wider evidence as part of the ongoing review before deciding whether any further interventions are needed.
This consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing on 1 September 2026.
Consultation 2: Time off for public duties
The Employment Rights Act 2025 set out the Government’s commitment to reviewing the list of public duties in section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for which individuals are entitled to time off work, with consideration of special constables. The aim of the review was to ensure the list of public bodies and offices that individuals can take time off work to undertake remains fit for purpose and continues to support the effective functioning of modern public services.
The review found that the list of public duties would benefit from updates to reflect changes to public services, governance structures and devolution arrangements. The list also places insufficient emphasis on locally rooted roles linked to community governance and representation. Therefore, these targeted changes are proposed to modernise the entitlement:
Special constables should be entitled to time off under these provisions;
People carrying out eligible public duties with a clear local focus should gain the right to reasonable time off; and
People carrying out public duties for certain national public sector organisations should no longer be entitled to time off work.
Insights drawn from the consultation will help shape the future of this important entitlement and possible legislative changes, ensuring it continues to serve the public interest.
This consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing on 4 September 2026.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. The Act is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers, and unions to get Britain moving forward. The Act will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for sustainable, inclusive, and secure economic growth. The Government have further plans for both consultation and the release of Government responses over the coming months and will continue to update Parliament appropriately.
[HCWS100]
Fastest Growing Firms: Government Support Package
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Government are today announcing an ambitious new package to provide support for the UK’s high potential scale-ups to grow and stay in the UK.
Scale-ups contribute £2.2 trillion to the UK economy and employ 3.9 million people, despite making up just 0.8% of businesses, yet not enough scale into global leaders.
This Government have taken steps to address the scaling gap through recent measures including the modern industrial strategy, the plan for SMEs and the tax incentives and measures announced in 2025’s autumn Budget.
Now we are going even further, in a sustained cross-Government effort to close the scale-up gap and make the UK the first choice for our top scaling talent as we strive to produce the UK’s first trillion dollar firm.
For high growth, strategically important scale-ups with the potential to be the UK’s first trillion-dollar company, the UK Government will act as the strategic partner, offering a concierge service that will act quickly and decisively to help these companies tackle barriers to growth, whether that is accessing talent or markets—either overseas or HMG procurement—or regulatory barriers.
To strengthen the UK’s pipeline of high growth firms, I have launched an external tender for an expert third party provider to run an 18-month pilot from autumn 2026. As set out in the industrial strategy, I want to broker new relationships with businesses and use the expertise and experience of those partnerships to our full advantage. This will establish tangible and robust 12-month intensive support for scale-up founders that are facing critical tipping points in their growth journey. Companies will receive tailored action plans with the focus of support on networking, markets, investment and talent.
Delivering the growth agenda in lockstep with industry is critical, and I am grateful for the input from my Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and industry experts as we have developed this offer for scale-ups. We will continue working closely with industry to identify where the UK can go further in boldly backing scale-ups. That is why today I have appointed Penny Verbe—who has founded and scaled global companies—as my scale-up adviser, to ensure our support reflects what businesses need and to champion the sector.
[HCWS95]
South Korean Hot-rolled Steel Plate: TRA Recommendation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
On 6 June 2025, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority initiated a dumping investigation on hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin. During the investigation, the TRA recommended to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that a provisional anti-dumping measure be applied for up to six months at duties of between 11.63% and 29.12%, dependent upon the South Korean exporter. This recommendation was made on the basis that the TRA provisionally determined that two domestic producers, Spartan Steel and Tata Steel UK, have been injured by dumping of hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin.
While the Secretary of State recognises the TRA’s provisional findings, he has also considered wider matters in the public interest. From 1 July 2026, the Government will implement a new steel trade measure by preserving vital steel production for critical national infrastructure and defence. The application of this measure may impact the need for a provisional anti-dumping measure, and this is a point that the TRA did not consider in its recommendation, which preceded the announcement of the new steel measure.
In this context, and mindful of the impact on the wider UK-South Korea trade relationship, the Secretary of State is satisfied that, in this unique situation, it is not in the public interest to apply the provisional measure.
The Secretary of State’s decision here does not affect any future decision he may take upon receipt of the TRA’s final recommendation regarding this investigation.
The Government will publish a public notice on 9 June 2026 to give effect to this decision
[HCWS102]
Small Business Regulatory Taskforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
When regulation works for small business, it works for all. I am committed to ensuring the Government provide the best assistance to those brave enough to start a business and it is only right our regulatory environment supports entrepreneurs. It is for that reason that I am today announcing the establishment of the small business regulatory taskforce. The taskforce has been commissioned by His Majesty’s Government to develop recommendations that will target reducing regulatory burdens faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, including microbusinesses. The taskforce will first meet on 11 June.
These recommendations will drive forwards our work to reduce the administrative burden of regulation by 25% and build on commitments in our small business plan to make life easier to start, run and grow your business in the UK. Small businesses are central to the UK economy. Yet far too often they face disproportionate regulatory and administrative burdens. Evidence gathered by the Department for Business and Trade’s business questionnaire shows that complexity, duplication and inconsistent guidance across regulators can make it harder for smaller firms to comply and grow. This Government are determined to reduce unnecessary burdens on business while maintaining vital protections for workers, consumers, the environment and the wider public interest. The taskforce will seek to improve the clarity and usability of regulation in a way that looks to support and increase innovation, productivity and growth across the SME economy
I will co-chair the taskforce, in my capacity as Minister for Small Business alongside Tina McKenzie, Chair of Policy and Advocacy at the Federation of Small Businesses. It will bring together voices from business, industry and Government to identify evidence-based reforms that can improve the operation, clarity and proportionality of regulation for SMEs. The composition of the taskforce reflects a broad cross-section of the SME economy and will consult on members’ views and suggestions throughout the duration of the process. In doing so, it will build on the success of the 2025 licensing taskforce and help apply the lessons learnt from the John Fingleton-led nuclear regulatory review across the wider economy. The taskforce’s work is expected to include consideration of issues such as modernising regulatory submissions, embedding more SME-friendly approaches to guidance, exploring regulatory passporting initiatives, reviewing the impact of enforcement across regulators and local authorities as well as examining what more Government can do to support SMEs with the capability, resource and technology needed for compliance.
The taskforce is expected to run through the summer, with recommendations and a Government response to be provided in autumn.
[HCWS96]
Grassroots Cricket
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government recognise the power of grassroots sport to provide opportunities for connection and community cohesion, as well as improve people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. Inclusive, affordable, and high quality facilities are a key part of improving access to sport for people from all backgrounds.
On 9 June, this Government announced £3 million investment, through the England and Wales Cricket Board, into five multi-sport covered cricket domes in Birmingham, Bolton, Derby, Newcastle, and Nottingham in 2026-27, which is part of our previously announced £400 million funding for new and upgraded sports facilities in communities across the country. These areas have some of the highest levels of deprivation and inactivity, which have reduced opportunities for local people. This funding doubles last year’s investment of £1.5 million into two cricket domes in Luton and Farington.
As we look forward to the start of the women’s T20 cricket world cup which begins on June 12 at Edgbaston, we want to take this opportunity to get more people involved in sport and physical activity. These cricket domes will increase the overall number of opportunities for physical activity by providing a covered outdoor environment which enables all weather, all year round training and matchplay. All five domes will place an emphasis on continuing the surge in female participation that has been seen in recent years, as well as improving access for other under-represented groups, and providing a multi-sport offer which allows more people to participate in a wider variety of sports and activities that appeal to them.
[HCWS99]
Armed Forces Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision to accept in full the 2026 pay award recommendations for armed forces remuneration made by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Armed forces personnel will receive their third consecutive above-inflation pay rise of 3.6%, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s commitment with those who serve.
The costs of this award will be met from within existing departmental budgets.
As demands on defence rise, we are asking more of our personnel. Our armed forces and the families who support them make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us all safe. This Government and the nation are proud of their professionalism and dedication.
This year’s award will be backdated to 1 April 2026. After the 4.5% pay award in 2025, and the 6% pay award in 2024, most personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since April 2024. Service personnel will now have an average annual salary of around £45,710, up by £1,650 from last year.
This is all part of the action that this Government are taking to address the deep recruitment and retention crisis that we inherited. With 14 years of recruitment targets being missed every year, and military morale falling to record lows, with the proportion of personnel rating their morale as “low” increasing from 42% in 2010 to 58% in 2024, this Government are turning that around, with better pay, better housing and better protections.
And we are backing UK armed forces with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—hitting 2.6% of GDP from 2027.
The award builds on landmark action to buy back and renew 36,000 military family homes, a new childcare scheme saving eligible forces families in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland up to £6,000 per year per child by reimbursing early years childcare costs, and legislating for the first ever independent armed forces commissioner, with the powers to investigate issues raised directly by personnel and their families.
The latest statistics show that this work is having an impact. For the year ending 31 December 2025, UK regular forces intake exceeded outflow for the first time since 2021 during the covid pandemic, with intake up 11.6% and outflow down 8.9% compared to the previous year, and total armed forces strength now stands at 182,050. And figures published yesterday in the armed forces continuous attitude survey show that satisfaction with service life has improved, up three percentage points since last year to 45%.
We value the AFPRB’s independent expert advice and insight, and the contribution that the collective membership makes on behalf of service personnel. The AFPRB report has been laid before the House today and published on gov.uk.
Today’s award, which will benefit the whole of the armed forces, reflects the value that we place upon our military community.
The recommendations
The AFPRB’s main pay recommendation was for a 3.6% pay award for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2026. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.
The AFPRB has also recommended rises and changes to other targeted forms of remuneration, and increases to some accommodation and related charges, which have all been accepted.
Accepting these recommendations represents an annual increase of £1,650 in the nominal “average” salary in the armed forces, as well as an annual increase of £1,250 in the starting salary for an officer. It also ensures that our most junior sailors, soldiers and aviators who choose a full-time career in the armed forces continue to receive the national living wage. The starting salary for other ranks will increase to £27,282, providing an annual increase of £948 for around 14,250 personnel.
The complete recommendations of the AFPRB for pay round 2026 are as follows:
Main pay award
Recommendation 1: That rates of base pay increase by 3.6% for all members of our remit group from 1 April 2026.
Nurses
Recommendation 2: The introduction of the nursing professional pay spine from 1 October 2026 for all nursing ranks up to and including OF3, alongside a senior nursing officer pay spine for OF4 to OF6 nurses.
Recommendation 3: That the value of the nurses’ golden hello should increase to £50,000 from 1 April 2026.
Recommendation 4: That RRP—nursing—should be removed 12 months after the introduction of the new nursing pay spines.
Recommendation 5: To move to a three-year cycle of reviews of nursing pay with the next review in pay round 2029.
United Kingdom special forces
Recommendation 6: In principle the introduction of the special forces remuneration model, with 20 levels and to include cohorts that have a recognised United Kingdom special forces’ selection pathway, for delivery by no later than April 2028.
Recommendation 7: That amendments to the model involving moves of up to two levels and the creation of new levels can be managed and approved by the Ministry of Defence armed forces pay steering group.
Submarine remuneration review
Recommendation 8: The introduction of a second retention payment from 1 April 2026 for OR7 submariners with between 14 and 16 years’ service and OF3 submariners—warfare and engineer officers—with 12 years’ service.
Volunteer reserves training bounty
Recommendation 9: That rates of the volunteer reserves training bounty should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Medical officers and dental officers
Recommendation 10: That the value of defence clinical impact awards and rates of trainer pay and associate trainer pay should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Recruitment and retention payments
Recommendation 11: That all rates of RRPs—including RRP (nursing)—should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Skills payments
Recommendation 12: That the following skills payments should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation:
Cyber skills payments;
Engineering supplement payment;
Defence human intelligence—HUMINT—skills payment;
The trialled payments at level 4 to level 6 of skills based supplement;
Professional supplement (aircrew); and
Nuclear skills supplements.
Compensatory allowances
Recommendation 13: That all rates of compensatory allowances should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with our main pay award recommendation.
Accommodation and related charges
Recommendation 14: That SFA rental charges for CAAS bands A-F should increase by 3.8% and not to be subject to any backdating. No increase in the rates of charges for CAAS bands G and below.
Recommendation 15: No increase in the rates of furniture charges.
Recommendation 16: That SLA rental charges for grade 1 should increase by 3.8%, with increases of 2.5% for grade 2,1.3% for grade 3 and no increase for grade 4 accommodation. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-06-09/HCWS101/
[HCWS101]
Flood Risk Management in England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Investment programme performance in 2024-25 and 2025-26
Between April 2024 and March 2026, the Government invested £2.65 billion to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences. This investment has made a significant contribution to improving flood resilience across the country.
Following a period of declining asset condition in previous years, this Government have acted to stabilise the condition of flood defence assets. When this Government took office, 92.1% of high consequence assets were at or above their required condition (Q2 2024-25). Thanks to the reprioritisation of £108 million into asset maintenance, this has increased to 93.0% by end of March 2026.
Over the last two years, Government investment has also enabled the completion of new flood defence schemes in every region of England. In total, nearly 62,000 properties have benefited from improved protection against flooding and coastal erosion—almost 10,000 more than the Environment Agency’s target.
Building on this progress, a new investment programme began on 1 April 2026, supported by the new funding rules the Government announced in October 2025. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood defences in the right places by simplifying our funding rules. They will optimise funding between building new flood projects and maintaining existing defences and ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment.
Targets for 2026-27
In the first year of the new programme, the Government will invest £1.4 billion, which will fund more than 600 projects across the country. This will contribute towards a target of 70,000 properties benefiting from flood risk management interventions by the end of March 2027. “Properties benefiting” is a new metric, replacing the previous “properties better protected”. It will count all properties benefiting from a reduction in flood and coastal erosion risk due to new flood interventions and prevention of risk increases due to maintenance of existing assets. Unlike the previous metric, it will allow us to capture the impact of a wider range of resilience measures, such as nature-based solutions, property flood resilience and sustainable drainage systems.
The Government will also continue to prioritise asset condition. The target for high consequence assets at or above required condition will increase from 92% in 2025-26 to 93.5% in 2026-27.
Investment in 2026-27 will also deliver significant environmental benefits. Projects funded this year are expected to create or improve approximately 800 hectares of habitat and enhance some 250 kilometres of rivers.
The programme will run for ten years to March 2036. During the first three years up to March 2029, the Government will invest £4.2 billion in capital and resource funding.
The Government have committed £7.9 billion capital funding over the whole of the 10-year programme period. Resource funding for the period 2028-29 to 2035-36 will be confirmed at future spending reviews.
This £7.9 billion capital investment, plus the £2.65 billion we spent during the past two years, means that this Government have committed to investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036.
This long-term commitment will strengthen the nation’s resilience to flooding and provide sustained protection for communities across the country.
Summary of floods funding figures:
£2.65 billion—2-year capital and resource spend 2024-25 and 2025-26
£4.2 billion—3-year capital and resource spend 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29
£1.4 billion—1-year capital and resource spend 2026-27
£7.9 billion—10-year committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36
£10.5 billion—£7.9 billion committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36, plus £2.65 billion total spend in 2024-25 and 2025-26
These are spending allocation figures, as announced in February 2025 (£2.65 billion), June 2025 (£4.2 billion) and March 2026 (£1.4 billion). An official statistics publication will follow later in the year providing a more comprehensive summary of floods spending allocations and expenditure from previous years.
Rural flood resilience
This Government are committed to supporting farmers, strengthening food security, and building the resilience of rural communities to flooding. Frequent storms and record rainfall in recent years have highlighted the vulnerability of our farmland and rural communities to flooding and the critical role that well-maintained flood defences and watercourses play in supporting agricultural productivity and rural resilience.
Through the £91 million internal drainage board fund, 94 internal drainage boards have delivered over 270 projects across the country, providing benefits to more than 450,000 hectares of farmland and 250,000 properties. These projects are extending the lifespan of flood assets by an average of 27 years.
The internal drainage board fund has been a considerable success, but I also know that some areas have been hit harder than others by heavy rainfall. This includes Somerset, which I visited earlier this year, to hear first-hand from communities who have been deeply affected.
I am pleased to announce we are providing £50 million to Somerset council to improve local flood resilience. Somerset council will oversee delivery of the funding and will work closely with local partners to deliver local actions. Despite being low lying, and having high water level management costs, Somerset did not benefit significantly from the internal drainage board fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces. Fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces.
The funding is in addition to the record level of investment in the flood investment programme.
National forecasting and warning service
Yesterday the latest floods resilience taskforce met, with a focus on improving public engagement with flood risk. Ensuring individuals and communities have the information they need, helps them to understand the risks but also to take the appropriate action.
To support this, the Environment Agency is launching a new national forecasting and warning service. This is a substantial upgrade to England’s flood warning capability, strengthening public safety by delivering clearer, more consistent and more reliable flood forecasts and warnings nationwide.
[HCWS97]
Youth Guarantee: Jobs Guarantee National Roll-out
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Earlier this year, I updated the House on progress to deliver the jobs guarantee. Since then, phase 1 of the jobs guarantee has started in six areas of the country, with the first young people now in work. We announced the delivery partners for phase 1 in April, and they can be seen here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-guarantee
I am grateful to these organisations for working with us at pace to achieve the first job starts in May. Many more young people will enter work through phase 1 of the jobs guarantee over the coming months.
Today, I am pleased to announce that the application window to identify delivery partners for the national roll-out of the jobs guarantee is now open as we prepare to deliver the jobs guarantee across Great Britain.
The jobs guarantee is a central part of the youth guarantee, supporting young people to earn, learn and move into sustained employment. It responds to a long-standing challenge: too many young people spending the early years of adulthood out of work or education.
In March 2026, the Government announced an additional £1 billion investment in employment and skills support over the spending review, taking total investment in the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy to £2.5 billion over three years.
As we build on this progress and roll out the jobs guarantee nationally, the scheme will be open to all eligible 18 to 24-year-olds who have been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months. It will provide them with a guaranteed, fully subsidised six-month paid job. This will include wraparound employability and in-work support to help participants succeed in their roles. The aim is to support young people in taking that crucial first step into sustained employment. Once rolled out, the jobs guarantee is expected to support up to 90,000 young people into paid employment across Great Britain over the next three years.
The Department for Work and Pensions will award multi-year grants to selected delivery organisations, which will deliver the jobs guarantee in local areas. Successful applicants will bring their experience of the local labour market to source suitable jobs and match young people to roles. They will also use their expertise to provide ongoing support to young people while they are on the scheme.
The grant application window is now open and will run for five weeks, from 9 June to 13 July 2026. Applications are open to organisations with the capability and local expertise to deliver opportunities for young people. I encourage applications from any organisation interested in working with us to deliver the scheme.
This national roll-out marks a significant step in delivering our commitment to every young person that they have the opportunity to succeed.
[HCWS98]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
British Council
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in supporting and funding the work of the British Council.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I was a board member of the British Council for 12 years—an unbroken record, I am told—many of them as a trustee, deputy chair and as acting chair.
The Government have increased funding for the British Council, and we are allocating it £173 million grant in aid per year until 2028-29. In addition, we have provided a one-off cash injection of £10 million this year to support the British Council to restructure its grant-funded operations, in line with its financial turnaround plan. We have also agreed to the British Council retaining the proceeds of asset sales of £60 million. These are significant increases, from the 2024-25 baseline of £162.5 million, when this Government took office. This is a very positive settlement for the British Council in what all noble Lords know are challenging fiscal circumstances.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I have great affection and support for the British Council, having been a parliamentary ambassador for it for many years, and having met many incoming delegations over the years. What I did not hear in my noble friend’s Answer was a resolution of the punitive £200 million Covid-era solvency and restructuring loan handed to the British Council by the then Conservative Government. The costs are eye-watering: £15 million in interest every year before even making repayments. Can my noble friend tell me whether this is going to be resolved?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, the loan was made on commercial terms to ensure compliance with the UK Subsidy Control Act, which means that interest rates are set at market rates. For the last five years, the British Council has made losses of around £50 million per year, greatly in excess of the loan repayments. The priority, therefore, is for the British Council to address these ongoing commercial losses, return to surplus and implement its financial turnaround plan, to get itself back on to a long-term financially sustainable footing. In the meantime, the British Council continues to do excellent and important work, funded by grant in aid.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, it is excellent that the British Council has been appointed as the UK’s national agency for the Erasmus programme. As we seek a closer relationship with the EU, how can we make sure that the British Council can play a full part in this, unhampered by this huge Covid debt?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: the Erasmus programme is an important part of the work the Government are doing with Europe, and the British Council has a big role to play in that. That is not one of the British Council’s commercial activities, as I understand it—but I will correct that if I have got that wrong—and therefore will continue and will not be affected by the discussions about the loan.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the £15 million interest, which is paid annually by the British Council because of the £200 million Covid debt, is bringing the British Council to its knees. Would the Government consider some creative solution to this debt—for example, by granting the British Council a holiday or delaying the payment of that £15 million interest debt until its financial situation becomes a bit better? As we know, it is struggling, and it is doing everything it can to restructure, which includes the letting go of a huge number of staff around the world. This is very much to the detriment of the long-term future of the British Council.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I said, the loan must comply with the UK Subsidy Control Act, but the Government have already made some concessions by extending it to 2027. The British Council submitted its turnaround plan in August 2025, and it has been independently reviewed. It is obviously highly commercially sensitive, and therefore I will not give a running commentary. However, as I am sure the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear, we hope that the FCDO will agree to restructuring the loan in the coming weeks.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, almost exactly one year ago, Russia designated the British Council an “undesirable organisation”, and the British Council was then forced to suspend all its remaining activities in Russia. Can the Minister tell us what the current situation is? Has any of its work there been reactivated? For example, are Russian students now able to access the IELTS, the global English standardised test?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. As he knows, the problems that the British Council has encountered in Russia go back a long time, and we take very seriously the recent problems that he mentioned. It is not a comfortable position for the British Council at all. I do not know the specific answer to the question about IELTS, but I am happy to come back to the noble Lord on that.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as deputy chair of the British Council. On current plans, it is likely that this Covid-era loan will be paid down for the next 15 years plus. Can my noble friend the Minister say why the Government have not accepted the British Council’s offer of using its art collection in lieu of the loan, given that HMRC regularly accepts artwork from private estates in settlement of tax liabilities? Why can a comparable arrangement not be found for the Government’s own soft-power agency? I am aware of the complexities of the matter, so I invite my noble friend the Minister to write to me on the specific issue of the art collection paying down the loan and to place a copy in the Library for other noble Lords.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am of course happy to write to the noble Baroness, but I make it clear that I hesitate, with my noble friend Lord Livermore sitting next to me, to say anything other than that the Treasury expects the loan to be paid in cash. He has made that point before, so I dare say he may have some views on this letter too. The art collection is a matter for the British Council to decide on, not for the Government.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the British Council has an important role to play in helping the UK to project its influence as a force for good on the world stage. It is, consequently, a member of the UK Government’s Soft Power Council. That council met four times last year, but it has not met once this year. Could the Minister tell the House why?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, soft power extends far beyond the Government, the British Council and, indeed, the BBC World Service to many other sectors—higher education, the creative industries and so on. The Soft Power Council had an independent review under Minister Elmore. Let me be clear that what is needed in the Soft Power Council is better co-ordination and more focus across all the different sectors, not just for the British Council and for the BBC World Service. That is what Minister Elmore will take forward.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, over a long diplomatic career, I have seen a lot of the British Council’s work around the world and just how respected it is as a torch-bearer for British culture and education around the world. Is it true that the British Council has to dispose of properties and close down in a number of countries in order to deal with financial pressures? Is that really in the interest of British soft power?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The British Council regularly reviews its estate, and it will continue to do so. The issue of soft power and Britain’s international reputation is about outcomes; it is not only about property. I have no doubt that, as part of the turnaround plan—and I will be straightforward about this—the British Council will have to review its estate, but it will continue to do its excellent work on cultural relations.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I had the great privilege, from 1998 until 2004, of being the chair of the British Council. Sometimes, it is useful to draw on one’s institutional memory. The reason that the British Council was set up in the middle of the 1930s was to share British values, as we saw the rise of fascism and Nazism across Europe. I just remind noble Lords that, as well as being a torch-bearer for our culture and language, it is also a torch-bearer for our values. Is that being understood by the Government and by the new arrivals in the Commons? Not very many of them will know that the British Council has been at the heart of promoting democracy, the rule of law and many other things and aspects of our culture.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with my noble friend, and I was proud to be her deputy chair at the British Council. It is absolutely true that the British Council represents Britain’s values, and that helps with our standing in the world. In order to reinforce my noble friend’s point, I will draw attention to two of the British Council’s excellent programmes. The British Council continues to manage £78 million of scholarships —Chevening, Marshall and Commonwealth scholarships. Exactly in the way that my noble friend described, the British Council has a very big programme with Ukrainian schools, of which it should be extremely proud.
E-scooters and E-bikes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of electric bikes and scooters on roads.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Government recognise the role that light electric vehicles, including electric cycles and scooters, can play in supporting economic growth, improving health and reducing emissions. The electric cycles that comply with regulations are already permitted on public roads, and the Government recently legislated to improve the regulation of shared bike schemes. E-scooters are being tested through shared rental trials to assess their benefits and safety, while private e-scooters remain illegal for use on public roads. We will consult on proposals for e-scooters in the next few months.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, last October, Sandy Peters was walking on a pavement in south London with her son—it was his birthday—when a hired bike hit her at full speed. Her face went into a brick wall. She spent seven days in hospital, facing £10,000-worth of dental surgery. She has no way of recovering that money, because the company that hired out the bike carries no rider liability insurance. The rider was 16 and should have never hired a bike, but the age checks failed and the law required none. Nobody was held to account. Does the Minister not think it time to sort out the problems of e-bikes and e-scooters once and for all?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The first thing to say is that we absolutely sympathise with somebody with such terrible injuries in those circumstances; our hearts go out to them and their family. As part of the powers the Government have taken on shared cycles, we will have powers to set insurance requirements. No decisions have yet been taken, but we will consult on them as a consequence of the powers given in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act for precisely the reason given by the noble Lord: hire schemes need some rules, and that legislation enables us to set them.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, where I live, in Oxford, one of the problems with e-bikes and e-scooters is that, all too often, they are dumped on the footpath and block the way for, in particular, mothers with prams and pushchairs, elderly people and the sight-impaired. In this context, in the past 18 months, Kensington and Chelsea Council has removed more than 2,500 illegally parked e-bikes and e-scooters and has charged the operators £210,000 for doing so. Does the Minister think that other councils, including Oxfordshire County Council, should be encouraged to follow the lead of Kensington and Chelsea?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction in law of the insurance scheme? He knows from our discussions during the passage of the English devolution Bill that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau is very keen on this. Can he also look outside Parliament at the new super highway for bicycles that is being built, and give an assurance that there will be safe crossings for pedestrians to reach the House of Lords and other aspects of Parliament? At the moment, cyclists and e-scooters are not stopping at the traffic lights, and it is incredibly dangerous for visitors and parliamentarians alike to cross the road at Abingdon Street.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was a surprise to the House authorities, just as it was to noble Lords, that construction of that scheme started on Saturday without notice. I and the department would expect the scheme to be designed in accordance with all the right design principles for cycling. I would also expect, as has been remarked in here before, all road users to observe their duty to comply with the law, which includes cyclists stopping at red lights.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I ought to declare an interest, in that I do not like electric bikes or electric scooters, so at least noble Lords know where I am coming from. Being stationary at a red traffic light and being overtaken by bikes that do not pay the slightest heed to the traffic signals is really frustrating to watch, not least given the speed at which some of them can travel. Will the Government give serious thought to negotiating with the companies? We understand the 20 mph limit, which I and a number of my colleagues in the House find incredibly frustrating. It would be useful if these bikes had speed limiters, so that the fastest they can go is 19 mph. Can that be taken on board? Will the Government negotiate with the bicycle companies to make sure that they do all they can to make these bikes as safe as possible for other road users?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Electric cycles are only legal provided that the user is 14 years old or older and that the cycle meets the regulatory requirements: a maximum power of 250 watts and a maximum assisted speed of 15.5 mph. Beyond that, they are classed as motor vehicles, so they cannot legally be used on the road unless they are approved and registered with the DVLA, and taxed and insured. Riders must also wear helmets and hold a driving licence. The encouraging thing is that enforcement, which has been championed by the City of London Police, is increasingly being carried out by other police forces which have realised that people who use illegal e-bikes also break other laws and create other offences.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we see a wide- spread issue with gig economy on-demand delivery riders illegally operating private e-scooters on public infrastructure. Will the Government introduce robust statutory duties for delivery companies to actively audit, monitor and enforce legal compliance among their riders?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right: many of the principal complaints about this concern riders delivering food and other items. The Minister for Local Transport has written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for appropriate training, and the department has commissioned research on the road behaviours of food delivery drivers. As part of the road safety strategy, we have announced the piloting of a voluntary national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them. The noble Baroness is right that there are issues with the gig economy and people who are employed to ride these bikes, and this is what the Government will do about that.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, e-scooters cannot be used legally anywhere in Northern Ireland, except on private land with the owner’s permission. However, according to the most recent figures, three people have died and 51 have been seriously injured in Northern Ireland due to e-scooter collisions. Under current legislation, the PSNI must issue a warning before any e-scooters can be seized. Does the Minister agree that the removal of this legal obstacle, enabling officers to act immediately, would be incredibly helpful in enabling them to better protect the Northern Ireland public from reckless e-scooter riders?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave police stronger powers to seize vehicles being used anti-socially, without first requiring a warning. It also introduced new respect orders enabling police and councils to ban persistent offenders from areas where they cause harm. I am not familiar with whether that legislation applies to Northern Ireland, but I will write to the noble Lord to confirm that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is time someone spoke up for the cyclist. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, I like e-bikes. I am one of a number of noble Lords on the other side of middle age who use e-bikes—legal e-bikes—to get around. Our case is undermined by illegal e-bikes being driven dangerously, often by delivery drivers. The City of London Police confiscates and destroys five illegal e-bikes every week. Should not more police forces do that and give wide publicity to that, in order to reduce this abuse?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, and in pursuit of his desires, the Metropolitan Police recently seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. A total of 2,741 were seized across 2025-26. West Midlands Police seized more than 50, and Greater Manchester Police seized six and removed 55 locally. Merseyside Police seized over 500, Nottinghamshire Police around 100 and South Yorkshire Police over 150. So, we are starting to see proper enforcement across Britain, and the more publicity all that gets, the better.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I want to throw my tuppence into this. Building on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, what strikes me is just how shoddy and tawdry our great city streets are looking. They have been turned into great parking lots of bikes for the benefit of private companies. Is the Minister not moved to do more than simply recite a series of legal requirements imposed on bicyclists that nobody ever complies with?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Gosh. The answer to that is the ability, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, to allow local leaders to license shared cycle schemes. This is precisely the measure that will enable local authorities to clean up streets, at least in respect of bikes. As we go forward with proposals for e-scooters, I have no doubt that the same powers will feature. The noble Lord does have a good point, especially in relation to people with partial or no sight, or other disabilities. Littering the pavements and streets with these things is hugely undesirable for ordinary people trying to walk about and make use of their towns and cities.
Further Education Colleges: Recovery of VAT
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forbes of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on further education colleges of their inability to recover VAT on expenditure; and what plans they have, if any, to address this disparity to create equality with other publicly funded education providers.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my role as president of Capital City College Group.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, further education colleges are publicly funded and provide free education. No VAT is charged on these services, meaning colleges cannot recover VAT on their costs. Further education colleges are currently outside the scope of VAT refund schemes that allow some public bodies, such as schools maintained by local authorities, to recover their VAT. The Government are continuing to look into the VAT position of these colleges.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. As he correctly identifies, since 2011, FE colleges, unlike councils, academies and almost all other public sector organisations, have been unable to reclaim VAT costs from the Government’s refund scheme. LSE research estimates this to be a loss to the sector of £200 million a year. This puts college students at a funding disadvantage compared to their peers in state-funded schools and reduces resources for courses in government priority areas such as construction, engineering, digital and health. Given that colleges deliver disproportionately to young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and in the context of the current national crisis of young people not in education, employment or training, will the Government commit to reviewing this funding inequity for the FE sector as part of their cross-departmental response to the Milburn review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As I have said, the Government are continuing to look into the VAT position of these colleges. Of course, admitting further education colleges to a VAT refund scheme would be a change in tax policy. As my noble friend knows, the Chancellor makes decisions on tax policy at fiscal events in the context of the overall public finances. I agree with my noble friend about the importance of FE colleges. That is why we are investing in FE colleges: £1.7 billion to support them to maintain their estates; £375 million to expand capacity for post-16 education; £590 million to support priorities such as recruitment and retention; and £295 million into 29 technical excellence colleges to support key sectors for growth including construction, engineering and manufacturing.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister accept that there are some areas where the law has already told the HMRC that it ought not to be demanding VAT—for example, agricultural shows—and that it refuses to accept the law and keeps on standing in the way of spreading what it has had to do for the Great Yorkshire Show to other shows? It is also true that the HMRC has lost its case about plug-in electric cars and is supposed to reduce the VAT to the same level as you pay at home. At the moment, it is penalising people who do not have a drive, and therefore people who do have a drive get their VAT very much lower. Why does he not intervene and make the HMRC accept the law?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There is a lot there. I am confident that HMRC accepts the law and is following the law, but I am more than happy to look into the points that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will return to colleges and the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. I want to follow up on the issue that he raised about the amount of VAT that is collected from colleges—about £200 million, if I heard the noble Lord right. What assessment have the Government done of the opportunity cost in improved facilities, more equipment and staff training that could be delivered if colleges were able to get that £200 million in VAT refunded?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have already said, the Government are aware of this issue and we are looking into the VAT position of these colleges. As I have also said, we have significantly increased the amount of funding that is going to FE colleges to do the exact things that the noble Lord is asking for: £1.7 billion to support colleges to maintain their estates and £375 million to expand capacity for post-16 education, among other investments.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, although the funding gap has halved in the last 10 years, FE continues to play second fiddle to HE in many respects beyond this important VAT issue. Does the Minister agree with the Milburn review that colleges face a further disadvantage because of the way funding is provided on a lagged basis, which disincentivises them from taking on NEETs who are less likely to complete their studies and therefore bring funding to the institution than other types of students?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There is a great deal to be said in favour of what Alan Milburn sets out in his interim review. He has published his interim review, setting out the drivers of youth unemployment. Clearly, some of the issues that the noble Lord raises are important to that and a factor in the rise in economic inactivity among those with health conditions. Alan Milburn will set out his final report later in the year, at which point he will set out his policy recommendations. I look forward to him doing so.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, picking up what the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, the FE college sector really is the poor man of the education system in this country. This follows years of neglect by previous Conservative Governments. My noble friend the Minister read out a number of different improvements in the resourcing of these colleges, but does he agree that there also needs to be greater parity of pay? Those who work in FE colleges are worse paid than those who teach sixth formers and much worse paid than those who teach in universities, despite neither of those groups being particularly highly paid. Will he look into this, with the Department for Education, to see whether there can be some improvement in pay and in the training of leaders in FE colleges, so that we can have better skills training in order to support the economy and a better deal for those young people who do not want to follow an academic route and go to university?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend’s overall point that we want greater levels of parity between FE colleges and other educational establishments. The Government are delivering those measures through our post-16 skills White Paper on developing the skilled workforce that our economy needs and on reaching the target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning. FE colleges are a vital part of that. One thing that I have not read out is that, in recognising rising student numbers, the Government are providing £87 million of exceptional in-year growth payments to colleges this year and are increasing funding by nearly £800 million next year.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, I am huge supporter of vocational education, so I welcome this Question. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that it would cost the Exchequer £200 million to extend the scheme in the way proposed? More generally, do the Government consider that the criteria to reclaim VAT are fit for purpose?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Both of those points are swept up in the point that I have already made: the Government are continuing to look into the VAT position of these colleges.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, another funding disparity currently planned for the next academic year relates to funding for free meals for students from poorer backgrounds. I strongly welcome the expansion of eligibility for free meals, but, in my experience, teenagers who attend FE colleges are no less hungry than those who attend schools. Will my noble friend agree to look again at the funding uprating for free meals?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. I hear what she says and reassure her that the Government are aware of this discrepancy and are actively looking into it.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government so often favour a model that takes a lot of tax off institutions, people and companies and then has to give some back by way of grant to help pay for it? Is that not just a double handling charge that we do not need?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, although overhauling the entire VAT system would be something of a long-term project.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about the disparity in pay between FE lecturers and schoolteachers, and the iniquity of that. FE is simply not treated in the same way as other educational systems. The Minister keeps saying that the Government are looking into this. Can he put a timescale on that? Are they looking into it this year, next year or way in the future?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said, we are looking into the VAT position of these colleges. I am not in a position to put a timescale on that just now.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to retrieve information in relation to the matters covered by the Humble Address dated 4 February relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as HM Ambassador to Washington; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which relevant records, communications, and other material remain available.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have published all available material, with the exception of a small number of documents that were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, making this the largest ever government response to an humble Address. The Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in this humble Address.
Lord Pack (LD)
In recent days, we have seen various WhatsApp messages passed to the media that were not handed to the Government for publication as part of the humble Address. Obviously, we do not know who passed those messages to the media, but does it not highlight the importance of ensuring that current and former Ministers and ministerial appointees fully co-operate with such processes? So would the Minister commit to reviewing the terms of the taxpayer-funded settlement payments or pensions for such people to ensure that, if, in future, people do not fully comply with such processes, there will be financial consequences?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about compliance with the will of both your Lordships’ House and the other place with regard to an humble Address. With regard to the specifics about any penalties, the Government currently have no plans to change the ministerial pension scheme, as I have put in writing several times to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern and I am sure there will be ongoing reviews.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I just probe the Minister a little more on that question? The messages that were published between Lord Mandelson and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister were clearly within the terms of the humble Address. They were not published. That raises two questions. First, why did the Minister not make them available? Secondly, what confidence does that give us that all the rest of the information that was in scope of the humble Address has actually been published? How can the Minister give us that confidence?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with the noble Lord’s second point. This was an official-led process. There were no politicians involved in the determination of what was and was not published. About 1,500 documents were published only a week ago. With regard to any correspondence relating to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister proactively disclosed to the other House twice last week that he had exchanged messages with Peter Mandelson, but they were no longer available to him to disclose as part of the humble Address. As he stated in the other place, if he continued to have access to those messages, he would have disclosed them as part of his return. He does not have access to the messages.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, given the miraculous emergence of the Darren Jones texts, can the Minister give assurances that there are no other withheld ministerial communications that will emerge? Also, given that confidence in this process has been shaken, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, can she now commit to publishing the schedule identifying exactly what material is being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I have said many times and very clearly from this Dispatch Box—I think this might be my fourth outing on the humble Address, which will make it also the noble Baroness’s fourth outing on the humble Address—we have published everything that is available to us and that this was an official-led process that has been done in kind. We are adamant, and the officials are adamant, that we have fully complied with the humble Address. With regard to a schedule of documents, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I shall be very clear: there are three buckets of information, which I have said on record before, about categories of information that will not be published. This small number of documents relate to national security, vetting material, conflict of interest process material and internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. As and when the Met Police believe it is appropriate to do so, they, too, will be published.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been using a WhatsApp system that permanently deletes official messages, and, if so, whether she thinks that is acceptable?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the guidance on ministerial use of NCCCs— non-corporate communication channels—is clear for all Ministers and is part of the Ministerial Code, which states:
“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.
There is a difference between storing material that relates to decision-making and the output of policy-making and keeping messages that may relate to gossip.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, how many other individuals in wider public service are effectively dismissed for gross misconduct yet receive a golden goodbye of taxpayers’ money to the tune of £77,000?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that anyone would expect me to have the details of anyone’s employment contract or their departure at hand, but noble Lords will be aware of Civil Service contracts, because they are available to Members of your Lordships’ House, and in fact this one was published as part of the first humble Address.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, the Minister said that deciding which messages to release was official led, if I completely understood that correctly. Is she able to tell the House what criteria or guidance were given to officials so that they could decide which messages to release?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the methodology of what was published and why, and what was withheld and what was redacted, was published in every volume of the disclosure last week, which noble Lords will remember I had next to me when we did the Statement. That methodology was agreed by the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office. A KC was then brought in to quality assure that process. Materials were passed to the ISC that related to national security and international relations, which the committee then redacted. Additional material was then seen by the honourable Simon Hoare MP in his role as chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He was then invited in on Monday last week to look at the third-party redactions to make sure that he was comfortable with them on behalf of Parliament, and he believed them to be sensible.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, this is beginning to sound more like something out of “Mission Impossible”, with telephone messages destructing themselves after 30 seconds and other telephones being stolen in strange circumstances. This is getting to be a bit of a saga of excuses. We have here a decision about Peter Mandelson and that hugely important appointment, which was catastrophic. I would be the last person to accuse the Government of a cover-up, but it does leave a sense that the Government simply do not want to deal with this issue properly. Does the Minister not realise that this leaves the whole Government with a sense of avoidance: of not willing to face the truth that this was an appalling mess of their own creation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I shall take some of those points in turn. First, the Prime Minister have been very clear that the appointment of Peter Mandelson was a mistake, and he has apologised to Members of the other place and Members of your Lordships’ House but, most importantly, to the victims of Epstein. With regard to the publication, there has never been a larger amount of material released in relation to a humble Address. Last week, we released the second tranche of 1,500 pages, of which I read every one. Over three volumes, 337 documents were passed to the ISC. If there had been any idea of a cover-up, I think certain messages would never have seen the light of day. Instead, they have ensured that the tabloids have had something to write about, if nobody else.
Lord Grayling (Con)
Have the rules now been changed where an official mobile phone is supposedly stolen? Does that have to be reported? What is the process now?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is exactly the same as it was then and the process was reported to the police, as the police have confirmed for both the stolen devices.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Does the Minister know how many Ministers were communicating with Peter Mandelson using disappearing messages on official government devices?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have no way to access that information.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, when Morgan McSweeney appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he said, “All of my messages concerning the Mandelson appointment will be published in the first round of publications”. Have they been?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware, as are all Members of your Lordships’ House, that Morgan McSweeney is no longer in post, and, with the greatest respect, neither I nor he would have known what was being published at any point in any such tranche. I reassure the House that the Government have complied with the humble Address but, as was previously set out, it remains the case that a subset of documents is subject to an ongoing police investigation.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the previous Government also operated a system of disappearing messages?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who use disappearing messages. There are also many Members of both this Administration and the previous one who use WhatsApp far too often, which is why are undertaking a review of how NCCCs will be used by this and future Governments.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, that completes Oral Questions for today. Those Members who wish to disappear from the Chamber should do so now.
Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]
Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill [HL]
Malvern Hills Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Malvern Hills Bill [HL], which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2024–26 on 22 January 2025, should have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, I beg to move.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, should Members wish to debate or object to this Bill, the appropriate time to do so is at Third Reading and on the Motion that this Bill do now pass, rather than on this Motion. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, gave notice earlier today that she wished to speak on this Motion. I will therefore seek leave to withdraw the Motion so that it may be retabled at a time when a debate can be held. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Cuba: Humanitarian Situation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the original Question in the other place from Jeremy Corbyn MP was fundamentally misguided. The people of Cuba have long suffered from economic stagnation and political repression, and the Cuban state has a long history of abusing its own people’s political, civil and human rights. While the US sanctions have clearly had an effect, that context must not be forgotten when we are discussing the humanitarian situation in Cuba today. Can the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with US counterparts since the beginning of the embargo? What assessment has his department made of the news that a sanctioned Russian oil tanker arrived in Havana on 30 March this year? Can he confirm whether or not the Attorney-General has given advice to the Government on the legality of the US embargo?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his series of questions but, as he is well aware, successive United Kingdom Governments have opposed the United States’ embargo on Cuba and have done so consistently over many occasions for almost 30 years, certainly at the United Nations. We will continue that. Our position has been very clear that engagement and involvement are a way that we can deliver very clear messages about human rights. We have strongly made those points to both Cuba and the United States and we work with allies to pursue that position. In relation to reports of third-country involvement in Russia’s illegal war, we will continue to take appropriate action, together with our international partners, to deter those responsible.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has said about the blockade:
“Such severe sanctions packages that target entire sectors of an economy and produce broad, indiscriminate, and harsh effects on populations are incompatible with basic principles of international human rights law”.
We all know that poverty and hardship have been embedded by political repression in Cuba, but aid is now being provided by Canada and Europe for a humanitarian crisis created mostly by the US. The current blockade is making a long-term difficult situation for the people of Cuba potentially disastrous. What are the UK Government doing to engage with the United States Government to find ways to liberalise Cuba, to the benefit of its people, and not just see it as a resource to be plundered by US corporates?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but what the United Kingdom Government have been doing is engaging with both the United States and Cuba. We welcome the dialogue taking place between those countries. Certainly, we are incredibly concerned about the current humanitarian situation. Our first concern is obviously also with United Kingdom citizens who may be involved, but our priority is to ensure, working through United Nations agencies, that humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Cuba—who, as the noble Lord points out, have suffered tremendously, and that needs to be addressed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in that one-party state which systematically suppresses dissent, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, which routinely uses sham trials and which imposes arbitrary detention in harsh prison conditions, targeting journalists, labour activists and pro-democracy activists, can the Minister explore ways in which we can provide practical support and encouragement to groups such as Cuba’s Ladies in White, composed of women relatives of political dissidents and recipient of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought? Can he also say when we last raised with the Cuban authorities the denial of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to Cuba’s horrific prisons?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the latter point, my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, Chris Elmore, has been in touch with the Cuban authorities. He has also spoken to the Cuban ambassador about these issues. We have been clear in our long-standing bilateral relationship, which has provided the opportunity for frank and constructive dialogue and allows us to continuously raise these human rights issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right, but we continue to press for the release of political prisoners by directly engaging, as I say, with the ambassador. We welcome also the release last year of prisoners under a Vatican-mediated agreement, so we are absolutely clear that these things must be properly raised with the Cuban authorities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in 2023, the previous Government signed the PDCA, which was a political agreement that looked at humanitarian areas and covered human rights. What is the status of that agreement? My understanding is that it is yet to be ratified. In that light, are we also engaging with the direct discussions taking place between the US and leaders of the opposition within Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said in answer to previous questions, we are engaged with the United States and with Cuba. We are encouraging the dialogue taking place between the US and the Cuban Government. In relation to the PDCA, ratification of the agreement was delayed to give the Government an opportunity to consider the position, particularly in relation to the global situation that we find ourselves in. What we have considered is that now is not the right time to enter into a new agreement and undertake new areas of our work. I think our priority is to address the immediate concerns, particularly in relation to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised, but also the humanitarian situation to ensure that we can support those United Nations agencies that are getting aid in for the people who need it most.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby (CB)
My Lords, President Trump has on a number of occasions suggested or hinted at the use of military force in Cuba. The present Administration of the United States do not have a good record of compliance with international law. In their discussions with the United States Administration, will this Government make it absolutely clear that they expect the United States to abide by international law in all its dealings with Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I suspect that the noble and learned Lord knows the answer to that question. We are members of the United Nations Security Council. We are absolutely committed to international law and urge all members of the Security Council and the United Nations to follow suit.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, the United States has offered $100 million in aid to be administered by the Catholic Church, which the Cuban Government have not accepted, as they insist that all aid must go through their own institution. Given that the Cuban regime has provided support to the Russian war effort, what steps will this Government take to ensure that any aid we provide is not diverted to the Cuban authorities but goes directly to the Cuban people, who have, as we know, suffered economic hardship and denial of freedom under a one-party communist regime?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat what I have said before. We continue to provide support, primarily through the multilateral system, including organisations such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF. In addition, we are among the major contributors to the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund. That is what we have been doing. Bodies such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF have established systems for monitoring distribution and ensuring accountability, which reduces the risk of diversion.
Digital Safety: Children
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, there is total agreement across the House that children must be protected from harms online. Noble Lords will recall that amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash on the impact of social media on children’s well-being were repeatedly resisted by the Government. We therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that further action is needed.
The Government have said that industry has three months to act and that legislation will follow if companies fail to do so. If Ministers are satisfied that these protections are so necessary, why have they chosen to rely on expectations from tech companies rather than legislating directly now? The proposals also appear to involve age assurance, device-level protections and enforcement obligations. What assessment has been made of the risk that younger users will simply remain on old operating systems, and of the practical challenges of implementing these measures across different manufacturers? The Government have also suggested that some educational platforms may be treated differently. What criteria will be used to determine any such exemptions?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House that, if the industry fails to meet the Government’s expectations within the three-month period, the necessary legislation will be ready to proceed without further delay?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that there is unanimity on the importance of tackling child sexual abuse online and taking measures to further restrict that and make it harder. As my noble friend Lord Hanson made clear during the passage of the Act, device-level nudity detection can play an important role in preventing children taking, sharing or viewing nude imagery.
This measure really looks at how to prevent those images getting online. That is a very important part of the strategy; it stops harm before it happens, in addition to the law enforcement activity that must happen in parallel. It applies to both old and new smartphones and tablets, and we expect tech companies to set up controls so that, if a parent hands down a phone, for example, all they have to do is reset it to enact this operating-level facility.
In respect of making sure that legislation is ready, as the Minister for Online Safety said in the other place yesterday, he is working carefully and closely in parallel with the Home Office to draw up legislation should that be needed, should the protections not be put in place at scale as expected.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my honourable friend Munira Wilson on trying to extract some clarity from the Government after the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday before almost any of us arrived at London Tech Week. Sadly, it did not contain all of what was in the weekend media briefings. On these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have long called for a film-style harms-based age-rating system, with addictiveness as a central criterion, rather than a blanket ban on user-to-user services. Minister Narayan in the Commons subsequently indicated yesterday that addictiveness is
“very much on our minds”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/26; col. 31.]
Can the Minister confirm that the forthcoming consultation response will explicitly adopt addictive design, including infinite scroll, autoplay and recommender algorithms as a harm category, triggering age-based platform restrictions, rather than relying solely on content type or constituting a blanket ban? Can she confirm that this will be enshrined in legislation, rather than a voluntary expectation of tech platforms?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The consultation to which the noble Lord refers includes looking at features and functionalities; it looks at addictive algorithms, screen time and the impact on children’s health. The consultation has closed. There were many responses, and we are taking time to make sure that we have looked carefully at them—and, in addition to those responses, at the conversations that have gone on. I cannot pre-empt the Government’s response, which will come soon, but all the matters I have just mentioned were within the consultation for discussion.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to safeguard against the obvious risks of requiring technology companies such as Apple to scan private messages before they are sent or received—also known, I believe, as client-side scanning? History teaches us that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities, however well intentioned, never remain narrowly scoped, whether in the hands of the state or private companies.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The particular expectation that has been set for industry is in relation to nudity detection, and that technology has advanced substantially. Apple has rolled out device-level age assurance too. This is not about threats to privacy; it is about keeping children safe online. An adult will be able to switch it off if they want to, if they are able to verify that they are over 18. This measure is about keeping children safe. It is about implementing nudity-detection technology on children’s phones.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, it is great that the Prime Minister finally met bereaved parents and acted upon some of their concerns, but a social media ban or restriction is entirely meaningless if the regulator lacks statutory teeth, which has been the fatal flaw of previous legislation. We need an enforceable regime that remains democratically accountable to Parliament, not closed-door consultations or industry-captured advisory panels to quietly water down rules over time. What steps are the Government taking to put in place robust regulations—for example, to prevent children using VPNs to get around age restrictions—close enforcement gaps and stop technology platforms shifting addictive features or constantly adapting their algorithms’ design to bypass regulations?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of the effectiveness of any regime; that is the central focus of what we are trying to do to keep children safe online. We need a regime that can be implemented, that can be navigated well by young people and their parents, and that is able to be communicated. That is one of the reasons we continue to support parents in having conversations with young people. The question about Ofcom’s enforcement powers is very important. We have made clear to Ofcom that it has the backing of the Government to take action. We have funded Ofcom so that it can take action and it has already launched 100 investigations and issued many millions of pounds in fines. That is the kind of regime we need. We need a regime that is effective and enforced.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, our debates around the issue of child safety in your Lordships’ House tend to highlight a lack of confidence that the big tech companies will do the right thing. They could make their products safe by design but they do not. If legislation is required after three months, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the legislation will be drafted and ready to go if, as many of us suspect, the companies do not act in the way that we want them to?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight the high expectations we have for this to be rolled out. We have made it very clear that, if those high expectations for the rollout at scale of this nudity-detection technology for children’s devices does not happen, we will legislate. The Minister for Online Safety yesterday confirmed to the other place that he is working closely with the Home Office to draw up this legislation in parallel, so that we can act should that be necessary.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
I declare my interest as a recently retired chairman of Ofcom. It is very easy to criticise the Online Safety Act and to criticise the regulator, and it is even easier to criticise the Government, but does the Minister agree with me that the force of the Online Safety Act and the work that Ofcom and indeed the Government have done in persuading tech companies to change their behaviour is not all negative? Indeed, this week, X voluntarily agreed to tighten up its procedures in respect of illegal hate and terror content, which Ofcom has scrutinised and agreed. So there are some successes. We are making some progress in a very difficult area.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: there has been progress in implementing the Online Safety Act since the illegal content code and the children’s code came out. As I mentioned, there have been 100 investigations into companies. There is also the very important aspect of the communication with the wider public, and indeed with tech companies, on what action is expected and at what speed.
Water Companies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, delivery of strategic water infrastructure is crucial to tackling wider systemic issues. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of smaller farm reservoir networks alongside large-scale water storage? That is the shortest question of the day, I dare to suggest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, are the rumours true that the Government will not publish the water Bill until Thames Water is resolved? The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by having failed to tell Ofwat and the Government about change of control. The only plan for the future appears again to be to leave it up to shareholders to own and pillage. Its independent expert states that the cost to the Government of special administration would be zero in the medium term, so why not get on with it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not aware of any such rumours. I do not know where they have come from, but I am not aware of them. On Thames Water, the Government are actively working very closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the latest proposals from the consortium. Clearly, in doing that it has to take the best interests of customers and the environment into account. We are looking at all and any eventualities that may come out of those discussions with Ofwat, which includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that it has to be faced that in the east of England we spend a lot of money pumping fresh water out to sea during the winter and then do not have enough of it for agriculture, industry and homes? Nobody at this moment is looking at the specific issue of how we stop the costs of doing that and enable people in the east of England to have water supplies that at the moment they do not.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point—in fact, he made it to me yesterday. I do not blame him for repeating it, because it is critical for the east of the country. All I can say is that we are looking right across the water industry to see how we can improve it and make it operate effectively for consumers and the environment. I will absolutely reiterate to the department the points he has made.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, water companies have knowingly violated their licence conditions and have more convictions than hardened criminal gangs, yet no executive has been fined and no company forced to relinquish its licence. What will it take for the Government to recognise that privatisation has failed and that water companies ought to be returned to public ownership?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I know the noble Lord is very keen on nationalising the water industry. It is important that we use the clean water Bill coming up later this year to make the systemic changes to the water industry that will deliver us an industry that is fit for the future and that people can rely on. That is the big problem—people cannot rely on the water industry at the moment, and we are seeing issues such as those with South East Water and Thames Water more and more frequently.
When looking at nationalisation, we consider the regulated capital value of the water sector to be the closest proximity for the total value of the sector’s debt and equity; it is currently £107 billion. This is usually used as the starting point for estimations. You can then put on a discount—for poor performance, for example—or a premium. At the moment, £82.7 billion is the cost of the outstanding debt of the water companies. We are not looking to renationalise because of the cost and because of the amount of change we are bringing in. We want to crack on. In the case of nationalisation, government would become responsible for that huge amount of money.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work that she and the department are doing in clearing up the rivers, watercourses and seas, though privatisation and EU regulations have played their part. She will be aware that the Cunliffe review referred to pollution and flooding being addressed up stream and to greater use of sustainable drains. Can she resolve her disagreement with her fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Housing to make sure that we can implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, yesterday I asked the Minister how long it takes to build a reservoir, but I am not sure I got an answer. I am told by a bit of internet research that it will take roughly 10 years to get through planning and then a further five to 10 years to build a reservoir, by which time I think most Members of this House will be either former Members or late Members. Are those the figures that the Minister is working to?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I sincerely hope that I will see that first reservoir built and that I will not be a late Member, and I hope the same for the noble Lord. As I said, part of the reason for the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to tackle that issue of planning. It is not just reservoirs; there are many other important nationally significant infrastructure projects. Look at Hinkley Point C for nuclear, for example, and how many years that has taken. That is why we needed to change the planning system: to be able to move these projects on in good time.
Lord Grayling (Con)
On these issues, and further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, one thing the Government could do, which would be simple and quick, would be to give farmers and landowners permitted development rights to build small ponds and small reservoirs on their land. That would be beneficial on water and beneficial on biodiversity. It is something the Government could do now. Why will they not?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are not telling farmers and landowners that they cannot do that. There are ways in which we can work with farmers and landowners to allow the building of small water-holding areas. I will discuss this further with the Farming Minister, but it is something that we are already looking at.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to reply to my Written Questions about what the Environment Agency in 2021 said was going to be its biggest ever criminal investigation. Five years on, with six charges potentially laid, there has been only one conviction so far. I encourage the Minister to work with her colleagues and fellow Ministers so that, when the water Bill does come through, a lot more power is given to the Secretary of State, as is happening with the Health Bill, so that we can get a move on with making sure that people go to jail when they need to and that we avoid this systemic failure in the first place.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point, not just on the water Bill that is coming forward but more broadly. I get very frustrated when we put in laws that should make a difference and then enforcement does not happen or things take too long. It is a really important point that the noble Baroness makes. Obviously, we will be debating the clean water Bill, and I am sure that enforcement and what we do about criminal behaviour will be part of those discussions.
Commercial Payments Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Northern Ireland and Scottish legislative consent sought.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, at the outset I acknowledge the work of the previous Conservative Government in establishing the Office of the Small Business Commissioner under the Enterprise Act 2016, and in introducing the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations, which require large businesses and LLPs to publish payment data twice yearly. Those reforms were important and necessary steps forward.
As most noble Lords know, I am a former business owner, so I know that many businesses across the United Kingdom have benefited from those measures without having to endure lengthy and costly litigation simply to recover money that was already owed to them. But despite those reforms, the culture of persistent late payment remains deeply entrenched in too many parts of our economy. Late payment is not merely an inconvenience; it is a scourge on British business. It costs the UK economy an estimated £11 billion every year. Small business owners spend more than 86 hours each year chasing overdue invoices. Every day, approximately 38 businesses in the United Kingdom close because they run out of cash while waiting to be paid.
Behind every one of those statistics is a founder who took a risk, mortgaged a home, invested savings, employed staff, and worked tirelessly to build a business—only to discover that despite fulfilling their side of the contract, they could not survive because payment did not arrive on time. That is neither fair nor sustainable, and this Government are determined to act.
In July 2025, the Government launched a public consultation to gather views from businesses, trade bodies, representative organisations and stakeholders across the country on how best to tackle poor payment practices and improve payment times. The response was overwhelming. Businesses large and small, across all sectors and regions, made it clear that reform was urgently needed. The measures before your Lordships’ House today are the result of that engagement.
The Bill builds on the foundations laid by previous reforms and delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle persistent late payments once and for all. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that when goods are supplied or services are delivered, businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, can be confident they will be paid fairly and on time.
SMEs are not peripheral to our economy; they are the very backbone of it. There are approximately 5.5 million SMEs operating across the United Kingdom. They employ around 60% of the private sector workforce and account for around half of all private sector turnover. Yet too often, they operate in a commercial environment where delayed payment has become normalised and smaller suppliers effectively act as involuntary lenders to larger organisations with greater bargaining power. The Bill seeks to restore balance, fairness and accountability to those commercial relationships.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces a maximum payment term of 60 days in commercial contracts, subject to limited exemptions, and renders contractual terms in breach of those rules void. We have listened carefully to businesses and stakeholders to ensure that these measures are proportionate and workable. Therefore, the Bill includes provisions enabling exemptions for large-to-large business contracts and for circumstances where the purchaser is the smaller party. We also intend to consult on secondary legislation that would exempt contracts relating to imports and exports from maximum payment terms.
This is not an attack on legitimate commercial freedom; it is a measured and proportionate intervention to address situations where freedom of contract exists more in theory than in practice because of unequal bargaining powers. Businesses cannot pay wages, suppliers, VAT, rent or national insurance with invoices that remain unpaid for 90, 120 or even 180 days. Prompt payment should be the norm in a modern economy, not the exception. The Bill also strengthens the existing statutory right to interest on late payment of commercial debts.
At present, many suppliers are reluctant to enforce those rights because they fear damaging valuable commercial relationships. Consequently, the law often exists only on paper. The Bill will remove the ability for contracts to substitute weaker remedies in place of a statutory interest at 8% above the Bank of England base rate. That will create a stronger deterrent against late payments and reinforce the principle that delaying payments should carry consequences. The Bill further allows suppliers to recover a fixed sum where disputes are raised late or without sufficient information in an attempt to delay payment. Too many businesses have encountered situations where objections are raised at the eleventh hour, not because there is a genuine dispute but because delaying payment benefits the purchaser’s cash flow. That practice is unfair, damaging and totally unacceptable.
Legislation is meaningful only if it can be enforced effectively. That is why the Bill will significantly strengthen the powers of the Small Business Commissioner. The commissioner will be empowered to resolve contractual payment disputes through a confidential adjudication scheme operating outside the court process, enabling small businesses to recover money owed to them quickly and efficiently. The commissioner will also gain powers to investigate persistent poor payment practices by larger businesses, to compel participation in investigations, to issue recommendations, to give publication and enforcement directions, and, in the most serious cases, to impose financial penalties. The Bill will allow regulations to be made to empower the commissioner to enforce compliance with payment reporting obligations when businesses fail to publish accurate payment data. Taken together, these reforms will transform the Small Business Commissioner from a passive observer into an active champion of fair payment practices across the United Kingdom economy.
The Bill also addresses one of the most controversial and damaging practices in the construction sector: cash retentions. Retention payments represent labour and materials already delivered and installed on site. Yet subcontractors and smaller firms frequently wait months, sometimes years, for money that is rightfully theirs. In some cases, they never recover it because of insolvency higher up the supply chain. The Construction Leadership Council estimates that approximately £223 million in retention payments is lost annually due to insolvency, while around £4 billion to £6 billion in retentions is held across the industry at any given time. That is an extraordinary amount of capital being withheld from productive businesses. Therefore, the Bill bans retention clauses in construction contracts and introduces a fixed sum payable for any unauthorised deduction from a retention payment.
A two-year transition period will apply before the ban comes fully into force, allowing industry and clients time to adapt and enabling alternative surety products to develop in the market. This is an important reform that will improve cash flow, strengthen resilience and reduce insolvency risks throughout the construction supply chain.
There is a broader economic case for this legislation. Growth does not come solely from major infrastructure projects or multinational investment; growth also comes from healthy cash flow in ordinary businesses across every town, city and region of our country. When small businesses are paid on time, they invest with greater confidence, recruit more staff, train apprentices, innovate and grow. Improving payment culture is therefore not simply a contractual issue; it is a growth strategy, a productivity strategy and, fundamentally, a fairness strategy. The Bill strikes the right balance between respecting commercial freedom and intervening where persistent unfairness harms businesses, jobs and economic growth. It is pro-enterprise, pro-growth and pro-fairness.
Poor payment practices destroy businesses, jobs and livelihoods. Too many business owners work day and night, often without paying themselves—as I, for one, know—reinvesting every penny into their businesses, only to find that they run out of cash because larger organisations fail to pay them on time. The Government are on the side of those businesses. We will not accept a business culture where smaller firms bear disproportionate financial risk simply because they lack bargaining power.
I am grateful for the constructive engagement and support received from noble Lords across the House through the all-Peers briefing sessions and discussions with Front Benches. I look forward to working collaboratively with noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. I particularly look forward to hearing the wisdom, expertise and practical experience that your Lordships’ House will bring to this important debate.
The Bill will help to ensure that the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world to start, build and grow a business. It will strengthen confidence, improve cash flow, protect jobs and create a fairer commercial environment for millions of businesses across our country. Businesses that do the work deserve to be paid on time. That is the simple and fair principle at the heart of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner and practising solicitor at DAC Beachcroft. It is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who not only read from a brief but spoke from his heart. He has a record that anyone should be proud of in building businesses in the past.
The Minister was also very generous in the praise that he extended to the previous Conservative Government. We on these Benches have consistently championed the rights of small businesses. In government, we created a specific duty for contracting authorities to consider small-sized and medium-sized enterprises in competing for contracts. During the pandemic, we directed an additional £69 billion towards support for businesses.
That belief in small business has followed us into Opposition, often in defiance of the Government’s broader approach to industrial policy, so it is welcome to see Ministers taking a step in our direction. For that reason, I say from the outset that we do not oppose the Bill. Tackling poor payment practices will be beneficial not only to small businesses but to the wider economy as a whole.
As the Minister pointed out, an estimated 38 businesses close every day as a result of late payments, costing the country some £11 billion annually. We therefore recognise the need for reforms such as mandatory payment terms and statutory interest payments, both of which should improve cash flow and provide smaller firms with greater certainty.
However, I recognise that there is a small risk that some businesses may be negatively affected by the changes to the late payment rules. Although that is undoubtedly not the Government’s intention, the decision to exempt transactions between large businesses risks creating an incentive for bigger firms to bypass smaller suppliers altogether. I would therefore be grateful if, when the Minister comes to sum up the debate—like him, I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions to this debate from all sides of the House—he could address whether the Government have considered this possibility and what safeguards could be created to guard against such an outcome.
Similarly, in a number of countries where mandatory late payment terms have been introduced, they have in practice tended to become accepted payment dates rather than genuine deadlines. Instead of encouraging prompt settlement, they have occasionally encouraged businesses to delay payment until the final permissible day. I hope that the Minister will address this concern in his reply; I look forward, as he does, to engaging constructively on these matters in Committee.
I also ask the Minister for some clarity on the 60-day payment term. There is often a discrepancy between when a business does a payment run and when the bank actually makes the payment. There are instances where unforeseen delays cause the payment to overrun the 60-day window, after which statutory interest is automatically applied. Can the Minister confirm whether the 60-day deadline ends when the payment is made or when it is received by the supplier? Does the legislation account for delays due to payment runs or payment system delays? Perhaps these points need more clarity in the Bill’s drafting.
We similarly support the abolition of retention sums in construction contracts. We recognise that retention payments are often far smaller than the actual cost of defects, and that they have increasingly become less a form of genuine insurance and more a mechanism for unilaterally transferring risk on to smaller contractors while preserving working capital for larger firms. That does little to improve either quality or productivity in the construction sector.
Despite this, we recognise that, on occasion, retention payments have served as a legitimate, if limited, form of protection against defective work. In the construction industry, where the cost of errors tends to range between 5% and 25% of project value, the importance of ensuring that adequate protection against shortfalls is available is self-evident. Given that the retention option is being removed from construction contracts, can the Minister please explain how the Government intend to ensure that defects in construction projects will still be rectified by those responsible?
I turn for a moment to the changes proposed to the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. Bringing upwards claims into its remit is welcome, as are the new powers to enforce compliance and to distribute fines for non-compliance. The success of these reforms will depend ultimately on resources. Greater powers and greater responsibilities must be accompanied by adequate funding. The former without the latter risks creating backlogs and inefficiency, and ultimately discrediting the important work that the commissioner’s office exists to carry out. I therefore hope that the Minister can assure the House that sufficient resources will accompany these expanded duties.
I also wish to address some broader points concerning the Government’s overall business policy. This Bill is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but I would describe it as a small step only, because it must be seen in the broader direction of the Government’s overall legislative programme. This is a Bill that rightly seeks to support small businesses in competing fairly with larger firms. It seeks to improve cash flow and to engineer greater and fairer symmetry within the market. These are worthwhile and sensible objectives. It is a great pity that those very principles should be in such obvious contrast with almost every other area of government policy.
Small businesses will welcome this Bill, but it will do little to relieve the broader pressures under which they must currently operate. Industrial electricity costs in the UK remain among the highest in the OECD, driven by a combination of high green levies and continued reliance on intermittent energy generation. The consequence is that large sections of our manufacturing and construction sectors are becoming increasingly uncompetitive and, in some cases, simply unprofitable. At the same time, the minimum wage has continued to rise significantly beyond the rate of inflation, discouraging investment in youth employment and training opportunities. For sectors such as construction, which already endures one of the highest turnover rates in the United Kingdom, this is particularly damaging. Businesses cannot continually absorb rising labour costs while simultaneously facing higher energy prices, increased taxation and ever-growing administrative and regulatory burdens.
I must return to the Employment Rights Act. The Government’s own figures suggest that it will impose over £1 billion in additional administrative costs on businesses. Many of us suspect that this figure may prove to be a significant underestimate. Those costs will inevitably fall most disproportionately on small and micro businesses, which lack the legal resources that are available to larger corporations. When the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is reduced to six months, many small businesses simply will not possess the capacity to manage, or even adequately assess, the additional risks involved in hiring.
Six months was a late and welcome compromise, but it will still make employers think twice and twice again before hiring people. At a time when economic growth remains weak and business confidence fragile, that is deeply concerning. Given the stated intent of this Bill—to help smaller businesses survive—I hope that, over the coming weeks, the Minister will be receptive to measures exempting some of the most vulnerable businesses from further measures within the Employment Rights Act that stand to be triggered by secondary legislation.
While we welcome this attempt to improve market practices and enhance protections for small businesses, without cheaper energy, affordable labour and proportionate employment regulation the effect of these reforms will inevitably be limited. We therefore hope that this Bill marks not merely an isolated intervention but the beginning of a broader change in the Government’s outlook towards the wealth creators in our society, without whom no progress is possible. This legislation is founded on sound principles. I only hope that the same principles will come to guide future policy more generally across the full field of industrial and economic strategy.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I too welcome the powerful, lucid and passionate way in which the noble Lord the Minister introduced, based on his own experience, the need for this Bill and the principal purposes behind it. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his exposition of some of the problems that he has encountered from his long experience as a senior and distinguished lawyer, because at the heart of so many legal disputes is the desire to delay payment.
I want to raise a point that has not been raised, which comes from much more recent experience, primarily in this House. The notes to the King’s Speech say:
“The measures apply only to UK-to-UK business transactions and do not affect global supply chains or international trade”.
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, which this Act seeks to amend, applied to all business-to-business contracts governed by English law—or, I should hastily add, laws of other parts of the United Kingdom, provided that there was a connection in the contract with the United Kingdom. My understanding is that it is intended that effect will be given to what is said in the King’s Speech under regulations made under new Section 2E, which is to be inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill, and that it is intended thereby to exclude all non-UK business-to-business contracts and thus achieve the result of excluding international trade from the scope of the Bill.
The point I wish to raise is to question whether that is a sensible and desirable policy, given the changes in technology, recent legislation, and the current emphasis on the need to strengthen the participation of SMEs in exporting and importing. I hope that His Majesty’s Government would wish to take a position to promote a modern policy in tune with their ambition to be leaders in the digital age: I would hope we would not be seen as laggards. I therefore suggest that we might need to look at and should consider an amendment to the Bill to remove the exclusion from the regulatory powers of the Bill of international trade—imports and exports—or at least to provide a sunset for that provision.
Now, can I explain the experience that has led me to this view and declare my interest through it? My experience is derived from my chairmanship of the Special Public Bill Committee on the Bill that became the Electronic Trade Documents Act. Since that time, I have taken an interest in trying to encourage the head start that the Act gave the United Kingdom in revolutionising documentation and payments in international trade, in particular financing trade and the speed of payment, that being particularly important. One of the avenues through which I have tried to do this is by assisting in the implementation of the Act as chairman of the advisory volunteer board of the International Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation.
The Electronic Trades Document Act was a Law Commission Bill, the purpose of which was to legislate in the United Kingdom to bring about a legal regime absolutely consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records 2017, but in a way that retained the historic flexibility of English law and was consistent with the law of Scotland. It is a very short Act: it is seven clauses over three operative pages. It is a pleasure to see that two members of that committee will follow me in speaking in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Holmes of Richmond.
The regime under the model law replaces the centuries-old traditional way in which we traded. Paper bills of lading, paper bills of exchange and paper certificates have been used for trade since the 13th century. It is a long tradition, and it takes a long time for people to get used to losing long traditions, but we must get used to this, and the Bill is an important opportunity to see how we can bring about a new system.
The new system replaces the old one with electronic documents, making the process entirely electronic. It provides better and easier access to finance. It ensures vastly speedier payment. It provides greater security than traditional paper-based documents and reduces the cost. If one wants to see a snapshot of the way in which the system works and the advantage that it brings, it is set out in a short and easily digestible recent report of the Teesside University Digital Trade Testbed on a project undertaken with the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation, the ICC, and His Britannic Majesty’s embassy and other stakeholders in Japan.
The regime to which the Act made the UK a party is already in force in many leading countries with which we trade—the United States, Japan, France, Germany, Singapore and much of the Gulf. Its implementation is before legislatures in many other countries, including India, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Spain, China and Turkey.
As the UK was one of the first to get going, we have an undoubted leadership. It was indeed a pleasure, as I am sure members of the committee will recall, when the French came over to see how we would be implementing the Bill. Huge work is being done by the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation and others to promote the use of digital documentation, but the UK needs more support in this. It was being done by the then Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but it now needs support from the new department.
It is important to realise that dealing with this matter in the Bill would bring huge advantages. First, it would encourage SMEs to engage more in import and export, as payment terms would be the same as for domestic trade. One does not want to see a differentiation. Secondly, it would encourage the move to electronic trade documents in the UK, with the great advantage that it brings. Thirdly, it would promote the leadership that we already have in electronic trade documents. Fourthly, it would bring His Majesty’s Government visibly behind the move to electronic trade documents. Fifthly, it would tie in with the move to e-invoicing that HM Treasury is insisting on. This is to be compulsory under the VAT regime. Sixthly, it would help achieve part of the Government’s trade strategy where it is stated, in reference to the use of digital documentation:
“The London School of Economics estimates that global adoption of digital trading systems could boost the UK’s GDP by up to 0.9%—and that even partial adoption could significantly impact the UK economy”.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his engagement on this point. I look forward to further discussions, before and in Committee, on how we can bring trade into the Bill, or at least prevent it excluding trade. That is so important not only to the way that we should be encouraging import and export business but to our leadership in the electronic age. I therefore look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords on this subject and to engaging further in bringing the modern age into the Bill, in comparison to the scourges that the two preceding speeches addressed.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with my register of interests. I chair the Joint Industry Board of the electrotechnical sector, which brings together employers and unions operating in the electrotechnical, engineering services and built environment sectors. Our employer members are a critical part of the construction supply chain, and many have felt the burden of late payments and retentions. I therefore begin by congratulating the Government on the Bill.
Noble Lords will be familiar with Ronald Reagan’s lampooning remark:
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”,
and will know that new regulation often engenders business scepticism. However, when it comes to tackling late payments, there is broad consensus that it is past time to update the well-intentioned but, in practice, ineffective legislation put in place at the end of the last century by the previous Labour Government. SMEs have been calling for further government action for more than a decade. This Bill will now deal with outdated and ineffective legislation.
To echo my noble friend the Minister, a shocking quarter of all firms are impacted by late payments. The Bill will bring relief to 1.5 million small businesses every year. Shockingly, late payments currently lead to more than 14,000 businesses closing each year, and the total cost of late payments is estimated to be a whopping £11 billion each year. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, graciously acknowledged from the Benches opposite, is a valuable economic pro-growth measure.
When the Bill reaches the statute book, it will advance the Government’s ambition for Britain to be one of the best places to start a new business, and Britain will then have the most effective late-payments regime in the G7. Knowing that payments will be made on time means that British businesses can rely on, or indeed bank on—for that is the right word—better cash flow, thereby releasing income for investment in capital and people. By delivering enforceable penalties, the Bill can change our payments culture.
I mentioned that 1.5 million small businesses are impacted each year by late payments. Some 900,000 of them are in the construction industry, so, as the Minister has made clear, the Bill will also tackle retentions in the construction industry. Retentions are justified, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made clear, as security against defects, and high-quality, on-time performance matters, but retentions, as the noble Lord recognised, are not a neutral accounting mechanism. In practice, they starve supply-chain small businesses of cash. They remove cash from companies that are often working on very thin margins. The practical impact of retentions is to remove liquidity from businesses that need that cash to pay staff, apprentices, suppliers, and tax and financing costs. Retentions expose small businesses to insolvency risk and impose a costly recovery burden that is often disproportionate to the sums at stake.
These retentions are not a marginal issue. In the impact statement and in evidence to the other place, retentions were estimated at up to £8 billion a year. Some 50% of construction supply chain contractors experience partial or full non-repayment of retentions, and the construction industry experiences the highest number of insolvencies of any sector in the UK economy. This Bill, as the Minister acknowledged, goes to the heart of building a resilient construction supply chain. It will stop dominant players using market power through contractual complexity, payments delay and retention practices to fund their own working capital at the expense of smaller firms.
The Bill, if properly implemented, can tackle these issues once and for all. No longer will money earned by small companies become free working capital for larger firms. The Bill can deliver not simply legal change but a significant productivity boost. However, as noble Lords have noted in all the opening speeches so far, the devil is in the detail. So, in my remaining time, I shall ask the Minister about issues to which I hope we can return during the subsequent stages: my queries relate to enforceability, avoidance and remedies.
First, on enforceability, as the Minister is aware, while the Small Business Commissioner has been an excellent advance, construction disputes are outwith the commissioner’s powers due to the separate existing statutory construction adjudication arrangements. However, this existing construction adjudication regime is largely inaccessible for lower-value claims, so I invite the Government to consider measures to ensure that the enforcement ban that they are proposing will also be available to small construction supply chain companies. Is this the moment to consider whether the Small Business Commissioner should also have some jurisdiction in construction, or could the commissioner have a supporting role in construction payments behaviour even if the formal adjudication regime remains under the construction Act?
I turn to the second issue, which is avoidance. If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, it must prevent disguised or backdoor retentions. So does the Minister agree that the definition of “retention” in the Bill should be widely interpreted by the courts to ensure that contractors do not try to reimpose retentions by another name? In that service, will the Government commit to monitoring avoidance behaviours, including where main contractors seek alternative forms of security, which could be more expensive, more complex or simply unavailable to small companies? I encourage the Government’s commitment to use the secondary legislation powers in the Bill expeditiously when new backdoor retention practices emerge.
Thirdly, and finally, I come to remedies. The construction industry’s payment regime is already highly complex. It involves five dates and two notices. As the Minister has acknowledged, the Bill proposes to layer on top of that a further two-year transition arrangement. I encourage the Government to consider simplifying these transitional arrangements to ensure that small businesses can follow the changes without having to pay for specialist lawyers.
The Bill is a significant development in the Government’s plans for supporting growth. It will improve Britain’s payment culture and support all small and medium-sized enterprises. It will improve supply chain resilience, reduce insolvency pressures and support a more productive economy. I commend it to the Chamber.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, who made some important points about enforceability and escaping avoidance of the provisions. I will come on in a few moments to talk about some of the other issues raised by the proposed ban on retention payments.
I am also pleased to follow my noble and learned friend—for these purposes—Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, with whom I served on that Special Public Bill Committee on the Electronic Trade Documents Act. From what I heard, I entirely agree with him on the importance of us trying to see the progress that we are making, under English law, in securing the electronic dispatch of documents being reinforced through the mechanisms that we are bringing into force in relation to payment terms.
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I am a director of a small business and chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, although I should again emphasise that I do not speak on behalf of any of the members of that forum. My views are entirely my own.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench may have done, we have worked on this issue from time to time over quite a long period, not just in the parliamentary sense. I was once upon a time the deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce and remember, back in the late 1980s, talking at length to David Trippier, who was then the Small Firms Minister, about the introduction of the code of practice on payment of bills on time. It is fair to say that where we are now, all those years later, has demonstrated that while it has always been desirable for us not to proceed by way of legislation and making payment terms mandatory and interfering in contractual terms between businesses, in practice we were never effectively able to overcome the obstacle that many small businesses would not challenge the payment terms of large companies to which they were suppliers. We have to be prepared to step in.
That is indeed, as other noble Lords have said, where the Small Business Commissioner is a very important addition to our armament. The work of the Small Business Commissioner and her team is really central to ensuring that small and medium enterprises can be protected, because they are not themselves having to raise complaints against their larger customers. I hope that we thoroughly support greater powers for the Small Business Commissioner.
Is there a means by which the interventions that the Small Business Commissioner can undertake might be prompted and supported occasionally by working with the large audit firms? We know that payment terms tend to be longer in larger businesses and, when the audit firms are examining larger businesses, it would be possible for them to sample their payment terms and report to the Small Business Commissioner so that the commissioner’s team could, where necessary, investigate particular large firms without necessarily having to do so off the back of a complaint by a particular supplier.
I have one other principal point about payment terms. The Government have chosen the 60-day approach, not the option to move over time—after, say, five years or so—to the 45-day approach. I have been trying to work this out in my head and thinking about it simply in practical terms. If one is, as a company, in receipt of an invoice in the first part of the month, it should be paid at the end of the month. Quite often companies have end-of-the-month payment runs and often rest on that as an excuse for delay. But if it is in the first part of the month, it should be paid by the end of the month and if it were to move to the following month, it would exceed 45 days. If, however, one receives an invoice in the latter part of the month and it passes over the end of the month in the payment run, it would go to the end of the following month and therefore would probably just about fall within 45 days. Thinking about it in practical terms, it always seemed to me that 45 days ought to be the logical maximum payment term, and I am not quite sure I understand where 60 days comes from in relation to the practicalities of when one receives an invoice. I hope we might think carefully about whether moving to 45 days might be better in the long run.
I have one point—an important one from my point of view—on retention payments. I have never been persuaded and am still trying to be persuaded. I think I would be more persuaded if I felt confident, as my noble friend on the Front Bench was saying, that we had other mechanisms for dealing with snags and defects.
In that context, if not today then in further discussion, we might look at whether the Government are now in a position to activate fully the new homes ombudsman scheme, under the auspices of the new homes quality board. I am very much persuaded of the value of this. Many major contractors are signed up to that scheme, and we are pretty close to the point where it could essentially be made nationwide and mandatory. That might well give people the assurance they are looking for about desnagging for residential dwellings, which is an abiding problem that many buying new homes have to put up with.
As far as retentions are concerned, I have received a brief from the National Housing Federation. We were talking about social housing last week and I noted, with some concern, that it shared the concern that I have. Let me quote the National Housing Federation, which of course represents housing associations and registered providers, generally speaking, of social housing. It said that retention clauses are one of the strongest practical mechanisms housing associations have that enable them to hold developers to account on good quality standards, strong aftercare services and agreed delivery timelines for Section 106 homes. Noble Lords will recall that the Section 106 obligation on developers is the single largest mechanism by which we provide affordable and social housing.
The National Housing Federation went on to say that a ban on retention clauses will increase the risk for housing associations buying Section 106 homes. We know that housing associations buying Section 106 contracts is a particular problem; they have lacked the cash resources to do this because they are so busy trying to remedy aspects of their housing stock and meeting building safety requirements.
I ask the Minister to reflect carefully on whether we can deal with the problems raised by the National Housing Federation. It looks for an exemption for registered providers, which is not a small exemption. It would be a substantial one, but I want to be sure that we do not do something that would inadvertently further inhibit us in providing social housing. As we all know, at the same time as we are supporting the business community, we absolutely need to increase the supply of social housing. With those reservations for the moment, and with questions about the ban on retention payments, I say how much, generally speaking, I welcome the Bill that the Government have brought forward. I hope that the House will give it its fulsome support.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to welcome the Commercial Payments Bill and to take part in this Second Reading. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his absolutely outstanding introduction to it. I intend to make two points about why the Bill is so important to our business community, particularly those seeking to establish and grow enterprises of all kinds: small businesses and social enterprises.
But first, I want to say that I support this legislation for personal reasons. At a very early age, I was aware of the importance of invoices being paid in good time. My dad, Peter Thornton, was a master plumber who set up a plumbing and building business in Bradford when I was a child. It was a successful business that grew to employ a few dozen employees and provide apprenticeships for plumbers, electricians and brickies. He remained proud of that for the whole of his life. Even at 10 years old, I was aware that there were moments in the early days when customers delaying payment caused anxiety and belt-tightening times at home. Sad to say, some of this was the local authority dragging its bureaucratic feet and not paying bills in a timely fashion.
Many years later, having worked on a freelance basis and self-employed, I set up my own small business with a business partner. We were a micro-business— I think we employed 10 people at the most—and a very happy company. But again, my business partner and I had moments of anxiety caused by clients delaying payment of invoices and dragging their feet, particularly large companies that did not recognise the effect that an extra 30 or 60 days, or delays that were arbitrarily imposed, had on our company and its cash flow.
My second reason for supporting this Bill is that I am the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, of which I am now patron. I am currently vice-chair of the Social, Cooperative and Community Economy All-Party Group, and a senior associate of E3M, an organisation that supports social enterprises contracting to deliver public services. Social businesses are businesses. Many are small and face the same challenges as all SMEs. They seek to make surpluses, like any business. The thing that distinguishes them, of course, is what they use those surpluses for: to fulfil their social purpose. Equally, they depend on the timely payment of invoices and suffer in the same way that many noble Lords, including my noble friend the Minister, have spoken of from delayed payments and non-payment. There is an unfairness in that, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
A recent consultation by Social Enterprise UK about procurement, asked: to what extent do you agree or disagree that requiring contracting authorities to exclude suppliers from bidding on major contracts if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment of invoices to their supply chains within an average of 60 days would help improve payment by suppliers to the public sector? Of course, there was agreement about this. One of the comments—I am glad I am following the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, saying this—was:
“A 60-day requirement should be the minimum, but we would like to see it set to at least 30 days. This reflects what the Fair Payment Code recommends for SMEs, and would also reduce barriers for social enterprises, where healthy cash flow is crucial and late payments are often a barrier to entry. We would also suggest altering the wording of this recommendation to a ‘maximum of 30 days’ rather than an ‘average of 60 days’, to reflect the importance of prompt payment of invoices”.
This is why I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who at least suggested 45 days, and I think thousands of SMEs would agree with that quotation.
I seek assurance from my noble friend the Minister that this legislation will apply as much to social enterprises, co-operatives and community businesses as all other businesses. On that note, I welcome this Bill and I wish it speedy progress through the House.
Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the passion and eloquence with which he introduced this Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Thornton and other noble Lords.
When I began my career in banking, I had to work out cash flows and balance sheet ratios for businesses manually. To anyone under the age of 40, that is pretty neanderthal—and it seemed it at the time. But I remember being told early in my training that debt never killed a company; it was always a lack of cash. You might say that a banker would say that, and there is of course a relationship between debt and cash, but it was a simple lesson because it is true. So I welcome the thrust of this Bill and the provisions within it.
The latest British Chambers of Commerce survey shows that three-quarters of all businesses report late payments and one-quarter of all businesses report that late payments are having a direct impact on their operations or ability to grow. So the proposal in this Bill to set a cap on payments at 60 days can only be welcomed. It will of course be important for business to clarify the scope of any exemptions, as the Minister has said, and we will have to be mindful of how enforcement might impact on commercial relationships, especially between small suppliers and much larger customers. I also welcome the provisions in the Bill to strengthen the role of the Small Business Commissioner beyond guidance to more effective enforcement of prompt payment practices. Increased transparency backed by enforcement powers can only be welcomed.
It was the provision in the Bill to abolish retention payments in construction contracts that I found especially interesting. Here, I must declare my interests. I am a director of Hellens Residential—a for-profit registered social landlord that is part of a larger property group—and I am a shareholder in a small regional housebuilder based in the north-east of England.
The construction business model is not an enviable one. As my noble friend Lady Alexander said, it is a low-margin business. Last year, margins in the largest 100 construction firms were just 2.4%, up from 1.9% the previous year. You are paid in arrears, have a negative cash flow, and therefore have to have ready access to working capital. Your clients are sometimes debt-funded and illiquid in nature themselves. When building anything from scratch, you can take on all the risk of what is under the ground, which is the riskiest part of construction. Construction inflation over the last five years has been almost 40%, with inflation in key materials such as steel, timber and concrete hitting 60% over the same period. In short, it is not an easy sector of the economy in which to make money.
I am reminded of Warren Buffett’s remark that when a chief executive with a great reputation joins a company in a sector with a poor reputation, it is the sector’s reputation that will prevail. Construction in the UK represents about 4% of the economy and employs just under 1.5 million people. It is one of the diminishing number of areas of the economy where school leavers can learn a trade that can provide them with an adequate standard of living and, if they wish, career progression. Yet, as has been mentioned, despite accounting for just 4% of GDP, construction accounts for nearly 17% of all insolvencies in England, and current levels of insolvency are around 20% higher than pre-pandemic levels. Any changes to the business model must be considered carefully, but anything that improves cash flow in construction companies, as a number of noble Lords have said, should be welcomed in principle.
Retention payments—money held back by the customer until work is completed—are typically around 3% of large contracts and up to 5% for smaller contracts, so the sum held back is usually larger than the profit margin in the business. Half the sum, however, is paid when practical completion has been certified by an architect or a QS. That means the job is finished, so half the retention is paid over at that point. However, the other half of the retention payment is held by the customer until the defect period ends. That is the period during which the contractor has to return and fix any faults; it is typically 12 to 24 months. Often defects can take time to emerge—for example, with building work completed in spring, it might not become apparent until winter that there is a problem—but, in essence, around 2.5% of the contract sum is retained during the defect period.
If a window falls out, a heating system fails or an elevator malfunctions, the contractor is called back to rectify the fault at their own cost. This means that they have to pull people off another contract, which delays that contract, and get them to site, which could be miles away. Frankly, it is very inconvenient for them, and it can be quite expensive. They will turn up, sometimes reluctantly, and for smaller developments it is often the fact that the customer retains half of the retention payment that incentivises them to show up at all. If you have ever tried to get a plumber back to your house three months after you thought they fixed your boiler, you will get the picture. Although the industry is known for its disputes and resorting to contract arbitration, in practice companies usually try to take a commercial view on disputes. The fact that some money is retained incentivises a pragmatic approach to resolving disputes.
I have one question for the Minister, and it relates to behaviours. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Lansley, touched on this. How, in the absence of retention payments, will a contractor be incentivised to return to a site and correct defects at their own expense, short of a customer resorting to legal or other contract enforcement action? I think the Minister said that the transition period will give time for alternative mechanisms to be given. I very much look forward to hearing more from the Minister, if not today, in the Bill’s later stages. That notwithstanding, I very much support the principles of these changes. I am pleased to note that both the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses broadly welcome the Bill. The provisions in the Bill are practical and sensible and show a real commitment from this Government to support UK business, and I welcome them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and refer your Lordships to my business interests, which are largely in the SME sector, as set out in the register.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his very gracious remarks about the contribution the Conservatives have made to the Bill—the continuing line. I ought to fess up: I am not sure that the Conservatives have always led the way in this. I remember going to a speech that my noble friend Lord Heseltine, not in his place, gave. It was literally 30 years ago, but it was such a powerful speech that I can remember it. It was at the Institute of Directors, largely with small businesses there, and he was describing his business career. He explained that when he started off, he had a ledger in which he listed all the bills payable. The first column was “Bills 30 days” and the second column was “Bills over 60 days”. The third column was “Bills 120 days”. The fourth column was “Bills where solicitor’s letter has been received” and the fifth column was “Winding-up order has been received”. He said to the Institute of Directors, “Gentlemen and ladies, my advice to you, to be a success in business, is only pay the bills in the fifth column”. Not a great precedent, but a true story.
This is an important Bill and I believe it will be supported on a cross-party basis. It is something close to my heart, not least, as with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, because of my family history. Like many people in this House, I come from an entrepreneurial family. Both my grandfathers were originally in the furniture business, which led to my mother, after a successful career as an actress, deciding also to go into the furniture business. She discovered that in the East End of London in the 1970s and 1980s, there were a large number of craftsmen who made reproduction furniture. They worked under the railway bridges, some of them manufacturing reproduction furniture with wood, some doing the brass, some doing the lining and some doing the glass, but they were not combined, any of these businesses. She started taking furniture from one craftsman to another, and then took it all the way from the East End to the West End to sell it. None of those manufacturers could imagine “going up west” to sell their products, so she took the furniture there and sold it to the large department stores.
Now, it was a big learning curve for her: she had a great eye for business and a certain business acumen, but she did not have much business experience and she was busy juggling a family life. It turned out that the first meeting with the buyer in this upmarket West End department store was during the school holidays, and she was obliged to take my younger brother. The meeting went well and an order was about to be placed, when the experienced buyer said to my mother, “Now, Mrs Leigh, what are your terms?”, and she had no idea what that meant. Fortunately, my younger brother, aged 12, was in the room and he piped up, “2.5%, 30 days; 5%, seven days”. “Fair enough”, said the buyer, and the order was placed.
In those days, it was absolutely normal for a discount to be given for payments made in anything like a reasonable time. Needless to say, the buyer took the 50% discount and paid 60 days later. Sadly, there was not much that could be done about it. In fact, most businesses, as has been said, did not have the resources to cope with that sort of thing, particularly in the days of very high interest rates, so late payments is in my family folklore. Clearly, businesses need to have this situation remedied, but I cannot help feeling, as perhaps others do, that it is a shame that a common-sense issue such as this needs some 60 pages of legislation to be regularised, with some quite turgid and difficult clauses, and the heavy hand of government has to come in, for reasons everyone does understand, but it is regrettable that this is necessary.
There is a huge amount to discuss in this Bill. Later I will come on to some matters that are not in it but might be. I will focus on one area: the role of the aforementioned Small Business Commissioner, which comes from the Enterprise Act 2016—I see one or two familiar veterans on the other side of the House who worked on it. I note that the Government are using the definition of SMEs from the Procurement Act 2023. There are quite a lot of other definitions around; there is one in the Companies Act and we have the term “less complex entities” used by standard setters elsewhere. Perhaps the Government could start off by trying to find one definition for SME companies.
As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out, the concern is that most small businesses will frankly not have the time or energy to use an adjudication system in the way the Government anticipate. They will not want to enter it because they will not want to get into conflict with their customer. In a perfect market, the customer can choose which supplier they prefer, and no supplier wants to be deemed to be part of the “awkward squad”. I do not understand how this will work in practice and will be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. It seems to me that, by the time anyone has brought a specific complaint about late payments to the Small Business Commissioner, it will have been settled long since. All we are talking about here is timing, not whether the debt is actually due. Will the SBC have a 24-hour service seven days a week? I am keen to know more.
Some of this might be covered in the regulations, not yet published, which Clause 18 anticipates. Once again, the Government are tantalising us with what might come at a later date. I very much hope we will see drafts of these regulations as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, because in this instance, as ever, the devil is in the detail. It is entirely possible that the proposal for adjudication may be redundant unless a quick and effective mechanism is put in place.
Particularly interesting to me is Chapter 2 of Part 2, which will allow investigation into payment practices—not specific instances but whole practices. It is not quite clear from the Bill exactly what would trigger an investigation and who can do so. The Bill says that a large business can be investigated where it
“‘persistently’ engages in poor payment practices”,
but we need to know what “persistently” means. The wording in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes, which I have read, is not clear. Worryingly, it will allow the Small Business Commissioner not to progress matters if it does not feel that it has the necessary resources. That cannot be satisfactory, because it is less likely to have the necessary resources in respect of a very large business. Why should it get off simply because the SBC feels it does not have the necessary resources? I look forward to debating this and other areas as the Bill progresses.
As I mentioned, I want to raise something that is not in the Bill but might be, which is particularly relevant to the relationship between SMEs and their large customers. There is a growing and worrying trend of large companies forcing their suppliers to comply with certain conditions which they feel are obligatory but on which small suppliers might take a different perspective. This applies already in areas such as modern slavery requirements, but it is now being applied by those who have signed up to the UN sustainable development goals. We are half way to the 2030 deadline for hitting these goals but on track to meet only 12% of the targets, so panic might be setting in.
The 17 UN goals are a worldwide initiative of generally apple-pie good things such as ending poverty, protecting the planet and, to use their words, ensuring that all people enjoy “peace and prosperity”—I am not quite sure that every SME can achieve that, but those are the aims of the UN Global Compact. The problem is that CEOs of large companies have clearly been persuaded to sign up—maybe over a long lunch at Davos or by their PR agents—and are now forcing their SME suppliers not just to comply with these goals but to evidence that they are doing so. They are forcing them to attend webinars, go to seminars and set out specific goals that they then have to explain to their customers that they have achieved.
I have talked to SME businesses that regard this as wholly inappropriate and are struggling to be able to do business with larger companies that force them to undertake this sort of work. They just do not have the resources, but they are frightened to speak up because they do not want to lose the business. They are responsible people who carry out their business in their own way and take care to undertake business responsibly, so why should they have to go through all these hurdles just to supply a product or service to a larger company? Artificial barriers are thus eventually being created and are detrimental to SME businesses.
I am sure the Minister is aware that large companies are forcing their suppliers to comply with these UN Global Compact requirements; people are being forced into training and taking on other costs that are unnecessary. Will he consider requiring such companies to disclose where they are forcing their suppliers to enter into these compacts? I accept that we do not want to make large companies do more work in their annual reports—the average FTSE 100 company annual report already has 97,000 words—but, none the less, a line has to be drawn against this behaviour.
In closing, I particularly thank the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member, as well as Make UK and the British Chambers of Commerce, for their assistance to me to date. I very much look forward to working with the Minister, who I am sure will bring his extensive business expertise to this debate.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and to hear some of his family history. I always suspected that he was a big fan of sofa government.
I declare my interests as set out in the register as adviser variously to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP. I give more than warm congratulations to the Minister for the way in which he not only clearly and precisely set out the provisions of this Bill but did it with such experience and expertise. In all my dealings on previous Bills, I have always found the Minister passionate, constructive, practical and a pleasure to deal with. That will certainly be the case for the negotiations that we have coming up on this Bill.
It is a good Bill and I welcome it. To mash up my biblical references, it is full of good intentions but we all know what good intentions have the potential to pave and, as has already been noted, the devil is in the detail. I will go to some of that detail in the first instance. Why is it that if you are a small or micro entity you have a maximum payment term of 60 days, whereas if you are a public authority you have 30 days? I am a big supporter of public authorities. The roles and responsibilities they have are extraordinary, and the difference they make to people’s lives on a daily basis is to be absolutely applauded. My old man worked for a local authority; it is in the blood. But they are in a very different circumstance from micro entities when it comes to late payments. These are not ideal, but they are less likely to break a public authority in the same way as we see in those 14,000 businesses year on year. These are 14,000 tragic stories for all those individuals involved and in how that ripples out through their families and communities.
Secondly, I ask the Minister: when it comes to the penalties, why does the Bill specify 1% of UK revenues? As has already been noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in his excellent and powerful speech, we need not only to consider the international context from a trading perspective but to understand the modern environment in which we are working. Do we not need to see something consistent with approaches that have been taken in other pieces of legislation, such as the Online Safety Act, which looks to global turnover in this respect?
The Bill is positive, with many good intentions, which I welcome, but it could be made so much more powerful and impactful if it had the golden thread of inclusion and innovation running right through it. So many of the Bill’s intentions would massively benefit from AI, data analytics and inclusion by design. Take, for example, structured payment event data. AI could perform such a profound service to the intention of the Bill in this respect. Take also the Small Business Commissioner’s enforcement action. That will result in a rich disputes intelligence database, ripe for data analytics to be applied to it.
It is worth considering a number of “no’s” currently in the Bill, which, through amendment, we need to convert to “yeses”. First, there is no digital layer or auto-enforcement provisions. The tasks and responsibilities being given to the SBC very much will the end, but without providing the means in terms of resource, funding and technologies, to set out just three. When one considers the caseload—the amount of data the SBC will have to engage with—this is completely impossible without sophisticated AI, digital case selection tools and so on. What is the Government’s intention in this respect, and, without going into the detail, would it not be better to see some more of this at the principles layer of the Bill?
A second “no” is that there is none of the data architecture required to optimise the solutions sought in the Bill. The current structure involves self- referral in bringing matters to the attention of the SBC, which will inevitably result in a reactive rather than proactive, and potentially predictive, posture on the SBC’s part. What is the Government’s intention in this respect, looking at how, with an effective data architecture framework, we could enable the use of vital data from other parts of the state in the late payment process?
So much of this is about small and medium-sized enterprises and the asymmetry they often experience. The Bill should be focused on SMEs, because, as the Minister rightly identified, they are the backbone of the UK economy and are often described as such by government; but so much more needs to be delivered in order to support that spine. It is easy to talk about, but it is much more difficult to put in place all the measures required to support them. The Bill has the potential to do that, yet it contains none of the digital tools that would enable SMEs to engage with this new process. In order to track progress, to understand their rights, to calculate what is owed to them and to understand the pathway to the enforcement and investigation process, SMEs—which are often the furthest away from digital inclusion, enablement and empowerment —will be in a similar position without greater government action to support, enable and empower them.
The Bill contains nothing on equality. Late payments are not a neutral concept; they fall disproportionately on SMEs and, often, on minority owners, older owners, disabled person owners and community-based businesses. What is the Minister’s view on the analysis we would like to see in the Bill of where late payments currently fall and their impact from an equalities perspective?
Similarly, there is nothing in the Bill on ESG, yet the supply chain is vital to this. Late payments all too often occur at what is described as the lower or bottom end of the supply chain. What provisions does the Bill contain to support the Government’s ambition for supply chain transparency and positivity? Currently, because of the way late payments impact, there is no sense of how that is measured from that critical ESG perspective.
There are some excellent provisions in the Bill, and with amendment they can be excellent plus. We need to empower and enable small and medium-sized enterprises to do what they do best: run and grow brilliant businesses and provide great goods and services right across the United Kingdom. Through amendments, we can make the Bill better economically and environmentally for everybody. With amendments, we can make the Bill well worthy of prompt payment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have an economy that is heavily dominated by giant—usually multinational—companies. There is nothing inevitable about that: it is a result of political and policy decisions made over decades by multiple Governments. It can and must be different. The Green Party sees the Bill as a modest step in the right direction of levelling the playing field between very large, powerful companies and those who are often their suppliers and who are inevitably in a supplicatory position towards them.
Like many other speakers in this debate, I bring family stories. I am a builder’s daughter; my father was a manager for a subcontractor in Australia. I learnt early on, as soon as I was old enough to understand, that one reason my father was angry or stressed was that he was often concerned about his firm going broke because it was not getting paid or the payment was being delayed. Sometimes, that payment would arrive eventually; other times, it would never arrive. That does damage to a great many small and medium enterprises.
An illustrative case study is that of Carillion, which went down in 2008, taking with it many SMEs. This shows the link between the two problems of late payment and financial collapse. I draw on the excellent—as always—Library briefing to quote the economist Orcun Kaya, who notes that, unlike the 30-day terms that some offer,
“Carillion imposed payment terms of up to 120 days on its smaller suppliers and contractors”.
That meant that there was three months’ work—with debts incurred—for which people were not paid. We can clearly see that when a company starts to delay payments and stretch out its terms, it is often a sign of financial stress within the company. It should be regarded as a red flag. I cannot see anything in the Bill on that. I wonder whether there is any way to use the Bill to introduce a red flag system. There is word of mouth in various industries—people start to talk to each other and explain the problem—but word of mouth is not a legal or formal framework.
This case study also needs to be used to raise a broader point: we have huge structural problems in many sectors of the UK economy, which the Bill on its own tackles only at small scale. There is the disaster of the outsourcing of public services to the lowest possible bid, and the disaster of business approaches and business culture. In that respect I cross-reference today’s debate with yesterday’s Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The parliamentary inquiry into the collapse of Carillion said that it was
“a story of recklessness, hubris and greed. Its business model was a relentless dash for cash”.
Three directors were later fined by the FCA for financial misreporting. These issues are all interlinked and all relate to the nature of our business culture, which holds back so many SMEs in our society.
We often refer to the construction sector, and that is one of the issues that I will come back to the Minister on. Thinking about the great state of disarray in the construction sector, one awful symptom I have to raise is that the latest report on mental health in the sector from the CIOB—formerly the Institute of Builders—shows that male construction workers are three times more likely to die by suicide compared with those in other industries, and that 28% of respondents have experienced suicidal thoughts at least once over the past year.
We must acknowledge that we have a real problem in the structure of the industry. Late payments are part of this story, but they are only a small part. There are also the issues of subcontracting and fake subcontracting, where, in effect, individual workers are forced to become their own small business. They, of course, can encounter all the problems that the Bill attempts to cover. But how will a quite low-paid worker forced to firm their own business be able to hold late payments against a giant construction firm? That will help us to frame the shape of the Bill. On that point, I draw on a very useful and detailed briefing from the ECA and Actuate UK, seeking clarity on the Small Business Commissioner’s role in terms of construction. Perhaps the Minister could address that in wrapping up or, if he prefers, he could write to me about that.
Another quite technical point—I am again drawing on the briefing—is the issue of retention in new Section 113A. Retention is of course what the Bill seeks to prevent happening, and it mentions related agreements. Perhaps there is the thought that the judiciary will interpret attempts to recreate retention clauses by calling them something else and will interpret the ban very widely in terminology. It is important to address how we will make sure that retention bans are not just called something else but are still in effect retention bans.
The briefing also raises important issues about the transition period and last-day retention. There will potentially be a cliff edge at the end of year three, where all transition-retained sums could become due simultaneously, and that could create a state of real chaos. Again, that might be something the Minister will want to write about. The briefing raises some very serious issues.
Also on the detail of the Bill, there is the penalty for unlawful retention. That will potentially be very useful as a penalty, but it will become a reality only if SMEs can afford to enforce it. I do not see in the Bill any resources provided to help SMEs with enforcement, so what will happen with that?
We have had discussions about 60 days, 45 days or 30 days. It is important to note and demonstrate what might be possible. In the UK defence sector, the Ministry of Defence direct contracts specify that 90% of undisputed SME invoices must be paid within five working days. It is interesting to note that when we think about what is actually possible.
It is also useful to think about comparative terms here. Presumably, this does not cover the supermarket, food and farming sectors. We have the Groceries Code Adjudicator there. How does the Bill interact with the Groceries Code Adjudicator? What is the interaction?
Finally, I turn to an issue that has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Like him, I draw on the briefing from the National Housing Federation, which delivers a cry of concern from the heart about the Section 106 provision. We are talking a lot about inequality of arms and an inequality of power between suppliers and purchasers; here, we have to note that a major construction company versus a housing association in some ways turns that balance of power around. If there is a problem with, say, a block of flats that has been constructed and purchased for social housing, housing associations may not have the capacity to carry out repairs themselves. They may also find it extraordinarily difficult to bring legal action against a major developer. This is an issue that the Minister is going to have to address as the Bill progresses, if not today, because the National Housing Federation has identified an issue. I do not know what the solution is, but we certainly need to address it.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Commercial Payments Bill. It has been extremely interesting to hear the various points made by noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed and passionate introduction to this Second Reading.
The Bill deals with an issue that causes real frustration and damage to many small and medium-sized businesses across the country. Quite simply, too many businesses are not being paid on time for work that they have already completed. For large companies, delayed payments may sometimes be seen as an administrative issue or a cash-flow decision, but, for smaller businesses, late payment can mean sleepless nights, financial stress and serious uncertainty about the future. Many small firms are spending too much time chasing invoices instead of serving customers, training apprentices, creating jobs and expanding their businesses.
The scale of the problem is significant. Around 44% of invoices from SMEs are paid late, with late payments estimated to cost the UK economy £11 billion each year. Around 14,000 businesses close annually because of late payments. This should concern us all. Small businesses are central to both our economy and our communities. They employ local people and support our high streets, and they often provide opportunities for people starting out in work or setting up businesses of their own.
This legislation is a welcome step towards tackling a problem that has existed for far too long. I particularly welcome Clause 18, which strengthens the powers of the Small Business Commissioner to help resolve payment disputes between smaller and larger businesses. Many small businesses simply do not have the time, money or legal support that is needed to challenge unfair payment practices. Giving the commissioner stronger powers to investigate poor behaviour, resolve disputes and take enforcement action is an important step forward. The Bill gives the Small Business Commissioner powers not only to resolve disputes but to investigate persistent poor payment practices and take action against repeat offenders.
Clear maximum payment terms are particularly welcome. It cannot be right that some businesses wait months to be paid while themselves still being expected to pay wages, suppliers, rent and tax bills on time. The Bill rightly tackles the issue of late payment interest. If a business pays late, there should be consequences. Removing loopholes that allow companies to avoid statutory interest is therefore welcome.
These problems are especially serious in the construction sector, as we have heard from many noble Lords. Many construction subcontractors and specialist firms are small businesses operating on very tight margins. They may already have paid for labour and materials long before receiving payment themselves.
I have read the helpful briefing from Actuate UK, the engineering services alliance, which represents more than 60,000 firms, together with the Electrical Contractors’ Association, which represents businesses working across the electrical and engineering sectors. Their briefing highlights how retention can remove vital cash from small businesses for months and sometimes years. The briefing warns that these practices can leave smaller firms exposed if larger contractors collapse.
Clauses 11 to 17 represent an important step towards improving fairness in construction contracts. The collapse of Carillion showed the serious consequences that unfair payment practices can have across a supply chain. I support the Government’s intention to improve fairness in this area, including through the proposed ban on retention. As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will continue to listen carefully to concerns around enforcement and implementation.
One point I would make is that these protections will work only if smaller firms can realistically use them. Many SMEs simply cannot afford lengthy legal disputes or complex adjudication processes. Without practical enforcement, some smaller firms may still feel unable to challenge poor payment practices. Can my noble friend the Minister say more about how the Government intend to ensure that these new protections are genuinely accessible in practice?
There is a wider issue around business culture. Paying suppliers on time should not be seen as optional good practice; it should be part of being a reasonable business. When smaller firms are paid fairly and promptly, they are better able to invest, hire staff, support apprentices and contribute to local economic growth. That matters not only for individual businesses but for the resilience of local economies and supply chains more broadly.
As the Bill moves through this House, I hope that there will be careful consideration of how to prevent companies simply finding new ways around these rules and loopholes through different contractual arrangements or payment structures. The Bill sends a clear message: small businesses should not be expected to carry unfair financial risk while waiting to be paid for work that they have already completed. Fair and timely payments are not just about good business practice; they are about confidence and building a stronger, more resilient economy. I support the Bill.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, during my entire life as a parliamentarian, the health and enduring viability of the small business sector has been at times a matter of concern, with Governments of all stripes to some extent failing or falling short of being able to deal effectively with the one key necessity for the success of these businesses: cash flow. I declare an interest in that I was for many years the deputy chairman of the Small Business Bureau.
I warmly welcome the opportunity that this Bill offers and the manner in which the Minister explained it. It shines a light on the key element here: late payments. In many parts of the country, we see evidence of the consequences of this, including a visible deterioration in the range of commercial activity on our high streets. We have even seen the growth of charity shops, however admirable their causes, go into reverse, despite lower business rates for them because of the more recent national insurance hikes and high electricity prices.
What is true is that the British Business Bank and the Office of the Small Business Commissioner provide reassurance and support, yet far too many businesses close every day, with all the consequences for employment; hence the welcome increases in the authority and empowerment of the Small Business Commissioner, including naming and shaming and the enforcement of fines.
At the heart of this is businesses having confidence; I know this as one who started a business. Confidence is fundamental for start-ups. Of course, further risk assessments always arise when expansion is contemplated and the velocity of payments becomes even more crucial. Is the Minister satisfied that those with small businesses are, or will be, able to go online and check out the payment policies of larger supplier organisations?
Information is the key. Is the Minister content that, where possible, the average time to pay is clearly indicated? Nothing would be more valuable than being able to start a new search with ease by simply entering the business name of a supplier. It is one thing to have a payment performance report, but how can it best be used and, importantly, ensure the monitoring of evidence? It would be good for smaller businesses to feel comfortable about accessing a league table indicating the time to pay. This would incentivise suppliers to be the best. Supermarkets already supply this information. If the best suppliers are clearly known, they will attract business and fulfil this role. This would enhance the integrity of the supply chain.
Then it comes to enforcement. Is the Minister satisfied that the office of small business, with enhanced powers, has the capacity to be effective in representing SMEs’ interests? For example, how many individuals will be attached to this role in the future, which is so vital given its expanded duties?
A number of local authorities do, admirably, pay rapidly, so I turn to the 60-day ruling. If there is the possibility—and I hope not—that this will cause a drift upwards, elongating payment times rather than the reverse, then this would be regrettable. I would welcome clarification about public authorities paying in 30 days, but why cannot private companies do the same? This is a question that I have been asked to put forward this afternoon.
We want to attract more foreign businesses to boost our GDP, highlighting the importance of getting not only the right legislation but a clear message that this country is open for business. For 10 years, like others I was one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys. Access to information about business opportunities in this country has hugely increased over this period. I pay tribute to our embassies abroad in this pursuit. Nevertheless, our export and import relationships are not at the sophisticated and all-embracing level that we find so frequently in other countries, where export activity is promoted through SMEs by these countries and through encouraging their activity abroad, supporting and creating an environment for our small businesses to thrive. They are, after all, the seed corn of the economy. This would be very welcome to all of us in your Lordships’ House, but there is certainly more work to be done.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I welcome that there is great support for it across the House and that we can get it through and help everybody else to make Britain a much better and more welcoming place.
I am pleased to speak in support of this Bill. It addresses a practical problem that has very serious consequences. For small businesses, timely and reliable cash flow predicts many serious matters: whether wages can be paid, whether rent can be met, whether investment into a company can be made and, at the end of the day, whether a viable company can survive.
The economy of the United Kingdom is built on small and medium-sized enterprises. At the start of 2025, SMEs made up 99.9% of the 5.7 million private sector businesses and accounted for 60% of employment and 51% of turnover. Therefore, a conversation focusing on supporting SMEs is really a conversation that is focused on improving the quality of our economy as a whole. Additionally, we know that, when we talk about SMEs, we are also talking about the jobs, families and local high streets that are attached to every single enterprise.
This Bill goes to the heart of our economy by improving business conditions for these vital companies. Approximately 44% of invoices from SMEs are paid late. Those very late payments are estimated to cost the UK economy almost £11 billion each year, forcing 14,000 businesses to close annually because of late payment. Every single closure represents a person who has taken a risk and who has often employed others and created work for their community.
I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition that payment culture matters. A small business should not have to act as an unofficial bank for the larger customer, and nor should entrepreneurs spend precious time chasing money that is already owed to them when that time could be spent growing their business, training staff, improving services or winning new contracts.
Much has already been said in this House about construction. I welcome the Bill’s attention to that issue. However, I wish to focus on small businesses and women’s role in the SME sector. For women who are building businesses, working as sole traders, employing local people and supporting their families, reliable payment is central to confidence, independence and growth. Women-led businesses can face particular barriers in accessing finance. The Government are trying to make this easier by talking to the banks, but we need more support networks and investment. When payment is delayed through no fault of their own, these barriers become harder still. A late invoice can mean postponed childcare, delayed wages, additional borrowing or the loss of confidence to take on the next contract. If we want more women to start and scale businesses, fair and prompt payment must be part of that ambition.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions to strengthen maximum payment terms, to make interest on late payments more effective and to give the Small Business Commissioner stronger powers. I hope that, as the Bill progresses and once it is implemented, Ministers will keep under close review whether the overall timetable for acceptance, verification and payment is sufficiently ambitious for the smallest firms. It is really important that we have some clause allowing us to look at this after a year or so. In practice, a period approaching 90 days can still feel very long for a small supplier managing a tight cash flow.
I hope that the strengthened Small Business Commissioner will be visible, accessible and trusted by the smallest firms—including sole traders and women-led businesses that may not have legal teams or finance departments behind them. This is a welcome Bill. It is pro-business, pro-growth and pro-fairness. Most importantly, it seeks to change not only the rules but the culture. I look forward to supporting the Government in that endeavour and to ensuring that small businesses, entrepreneurs and women-led enterprises are at the heart of its success.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who made some excellent points, as always, particularly on the backbone of the economy that is represented by small businesses and on the role of women. Those were very important points. I declare my interest as chair of a charity, International Students House. Like many other institutions, it is potentially impacted by late payments and is affected by the law on retention in construction contracts, as we acquire purpose-built residences for our students.
I thank the Minister for setting out the background to the legislation typically clearly and for the analysis of the provisions contained in it. He has considerable experience of business and of the problems caused by late payment. I also thank him for graciously acknowledging the role played by Conservative Governments.
Like other noble Lords, I am very much in favour of this legislation, which has received a general welcome from many relevant organisations such as the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Small businesses constitute the backbone of our economy, as has been said. The fact that some 14,000 businesses per year close because of late payments is a flashing light that has been ignored for too long. I welcome that the unscrupulous and unfair exercise of superior bargaining power by some large businesses is to be outlawed by this legislation.
This legislation seeks to combat the unfair and unscrupulous practice of delayed payment by rendering late payments—essentially those over 60 days for private businesses—illegal, and by imposing mandatory interest provisions where there is late payment of 8% above the Bank of England base rate. Previous legislation, no doubt well-intentioned, has been ineffective, as it has been easy to circumvent. It was pretty much optional—more of a signpost of desirable conduct than a requirement of that good conduct.
However, I have several questions for the Minister. The first relates to the 60-day period permitted before the legislation bites in the private sector. An extensive consultation was engaged, in which many people and small businesses participated. I wonder why the 60-day period was alighted on. Like many others, I wonder why a period of 30 or 45 days would not have been more appropriate, as raised by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Risby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Why 60 days? It seems to me that that is quite a long period. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the practice in the Ministry of Defence, is illustrative of the fact that we could bring it down considerably.
I have a question relating to retention practices. I recognise that retention practices can be used unfairly and harshly against small businesses, and often that is the case. The sort of scenario demonstrated by the Carillion collapse and the consequent damage done to so many small businesses is illustrative. However, does not an outright ban on retention after the transition period merely shift the danger? Purchasers will require performance bonds, cash escrows or some other security which would require an outlay of cash at the outset rather than a retention, which may may be more damaging to small businesses. I am not necessarily against the provision, but I am not convinced that it is the total answer. Retention can be useful and used by some businesses quite reasonably. It is abusive retention that we should be focusing on, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. My concern is that there is a danger of shifting the problem for small businesses; I am unconvinced that every retention is wrong or abusive.
I welcome the extended role of the Small Business Commissioner and the power to find late payers—though the commissioner does not cover construction contracts, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander. I too wonder whether it would not be better if we were to put construction contracts within the competence of the Small Business Commissioner. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point as well.
Finally, I have a point on the devolved nations. I appreciate that the law in this area is a reserved matter for the Westminster Parliament, but clearly the Bill is largely a UK Bill, and there are impacts for the devolved Administrations. With a change of Administration in Wales, I wonder what discussions have been ongoing and what engagement there has been. Some of the provisions certainly impact on the devolved Administrations —for example, Clause 26 expressly does—so I wonder what is happening in that regard.
On the whole, as has been clear during the debate, this legislation is, remarkably, uniting all sections and corners of the House and all parties. I am sure it will be given a fair wind and that any amendments we make will be to tighten it up and make it more effective. With that, I give it a very warm welcome and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to take this opportunity to speak in the gap and to warmly welcome the Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister not just for his eloquence in introducing the Bill but for his experience and expertise, and the Bill certainly bears their imprint. He was gracious and correct to acknowledge the steps taken by the previous Government, but he should be proud of the extent and scope of what he has introduced to this House. It will undoubtedly be transformative, even if it may not be the end of the journey.
As someone who has drafted a previous Private Member’s Bill on this issue, I think the Bill is impressively drafted and there is a good impact assessment. I am sure that, with the issues that have been expertly raised during the course of this debate, we will have a good opportunity to see if we can improve or clarify some of the elements outstanding in the Bill during our discussions.
I will add a couple of points that I would be keen for the Minister to consider. Before that, I pay tribute to the fact that the Bill as drafted and the impact assessment are a recognition that this is not just about bad actors. The realities of the business environment are properly acknowledged, along with issues that concern businesses and the challenges they have with cash flow. It is good that it has been done in a proportionate and balanced way. I continue to be concerned that it is just about large businesses to small businesses, where there are indeed problems with supply chains, with large businesses not featuring in the bilateral relationship, but I hope that we are able to consider how that may be addressed.
Although I and many others have always thought 30 days to be the right standard—there can always be consideration of a phased approach—I bear the same concerns that others have that marking 60 days may reverse the massive progress that has taken place in reducing the overall number of days. While we are looking at timing, clarity is essential. The Bill does not currently include a clear statutory definition of when payment is legally deemed to have occurred. The point at which the clock starts must be equally clear and resistant to manipulation. I hope that it can be made clear that the proposed 60-day verification period should be incorporated within the 60-day maximum and not added on top of it, which would de facto create a 90-day limit.
On mandatory interest, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that the large businesses will be required to apply interest automatically when settling a late invoice, rather than leaving the burden on suppliers to claim it—something which most would be unlikely to do.
It is time to consider late payments by public bodies and to merge those into the same regime. The last exercise that was done looked at FoI data. Public sector bodies identify the interest payments that they should be paying but none has ever been claimed. The last comprehensive exercise identified that £3 billion of interest payments should have been paid to small businesses. Some NHS trusts and local authorities pay over 80% of their SME suppliers late—over 30 days. It is time to consider joining up those regimes.
We must consider whether we are looking at predatory payment terms and other things in the right way. Most importantly, the journey that the Small Business Commissioner has gone through and where it has ended up in the Bill is encouraging. I urge the Minister to consider not just its resources but its scope, to make sure it retains the role, across all areas, to help advise the Government on further steps ahead. I welcome the Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am stepping in today for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who unfortunately cannot be here. I will do my best to channel him, but I know the House would have had more incisive comments, as this is not my field of expertise. I will take the opportunity to discuss an issue that very much concerns me; it will not surprise people that I will raise an in my comments whistleblowing.
Late payments have been one of the most persistent and damaging barriers facing small businesses, sole traders and the self-employed. We all know that it is not a new problem. Successive Governments have promised action, yet too many small firms still find themselves acting as unwilling lenders to much larger organisations, waiting months for money that they have already earned and that they are already owed.
We all know the consequences are not merely administrative; they are economic and they are human. Recent research commissioned by the Small Business Commissioner found that late payments cost the UK economy almost £11 billion every year, affect around 1.5 million businesses, and contribute to the closure of some 14,000 firms annually—what a waste—and around 38 businesses every single day. Businesses affected spend an average of 86 hours a year chasing overdue invoices rather than growing their companies, investing in new products or serving customers.
As Liberal Democrats, we have long argued that strong action is needed. Our 2024 general election manifesto committed us to strengthening prompt payment requirements and ensuring that large organisations could no longer evade responsibility. We therefore welcome the central provisions of the Bill.
The introduction of statutory maximum payment terms of 30 days for public bodies and 60 days for most private sector transactions is an important step forward, as is the decision to prevent parties from contracting out of statutory interest. Large purchasers have been able to use their bargaining power to impose terms on smaller suppliers that they have little practical ability to refuse. We therefore also strongly support the intention to give the Small Business Commissioner real enforcement powers and regard this as a significant part of the Bill.
The current commissioner has done valuable work, but moral persuasion alone has never been enough. There must be meaningful consequences for persistent offenders. The ability to investigate poor practices, adjudicate disputes and impose financial penalties represents a significant shift in the balance of power. It is encouraging that so many organisations representing small firms—the Federation of Small Businesses, Enterprise Nation, the Institute of Directors and the ICAEW—have welcomed the direction of travel in this legislation. We are also very pleased to see action being taken on retention payments in the construction sector. Specialist contractors and subcontractors have campaigned for years against a system that allows money to be legitimately earned but then withheld indefinitely and sometimes lost entirely when a contractor becomes insolvent. Ending this practice is both fair and overdue.
However, support for the principles of the Bill does not remove the need for scrutiny of its detail. We will examine the protection of complainants very carefully. The success of the new regime will depend heavily on whether small businesses feel able to come forward. Many suppliers rely on a small number of customers for a significant portion of their income; they may fear that making a complaint will damage future commercial relationships. It is a very real fear for many small companies. We therefore want assurances that robust safeguards will exist for complainants and that information can be provided to the commissioner without exposing vulnerable businesses to retaliation.
That brings me to a subject which, as many know, is close to my heart: whistleblowers. A key power for the SBC is the power to investigate where poor practice is suspected. I do not think that the SBC can rely solely on the information that it gets from complainants. To do that, it needs broader information, and that means that it needs a safe channel for whistleblowers.
A whistleblower is not the same as a complainant, and it is important not to confuse the two. A whistleblower who is an employee of a construction company, for example, may be key in providing necessary information about that company’s persistent poor practice over retention payments, say, but I checked and the SBC is not a prescribed person, so the employee providing that information does not even have the protection that, in many instances, would be available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act—confidentiality and the ability, if there is retaliation, to go to an employment tribunal. That does not exist and I would like the Minister to address that.
I always find the Public Interest Disclosure Act to be very limited in scope, as many know. A supplier that is not complaining about itself but that has come across key information—these people will be crucial to the effective work of the SBC—has no protection from retaliation at all. Since informal blacklisting could easily happen, because a large company would have friends all over the place, contacts and connections, there has to be some mechanism for suppliers that provide information on bad practice in the sector to be protected from retaliation. I would like to know from the Minister how that gap will be remedied.
We also question whether the Government have been sufficiently ambitious on payment timescales. That issue has been raised around the House today. There is significant support for a 45-day maximum payment period, and we will explore whether that should be the eventual goal.
The Bill rightly introduces limits on when payment disputes may be raised, but there is less clarity about how quickly those disputes must be resolved. There is a risk that an unscrupulous purchaser could simply raise a dispute and then allow the matter to drag on indefinitely, exerting commercial pressure on a smaller supplier to accept a reduced settlement. Are stronger safeguards needed or does the Minister think that they are already embedded in the Bill?
Much of the Bill’s effectiveness rests upon the capacity and independence of the Small Business Commissioner. Powers on paper are not the same as powers in practice. We want to understand how the commissioner will be resourced, how enforcement priorities will be determined, whether penalties will be sufficient to deter large multinational firms rather than simply being treated as the cost of doing business, and how Parliament will scrutinise the exercise of these important new functions.
Finally, we note that significant elements of the framework are left to future regulations. Delegated powers may be necessary in some circumstances, but Parliament should be cautious whenever fundamental aspects of a regulatory regime are deferred to secondary legislation. We will therefore examine closely whether the balance between primary legislation and ministerial discretion is the right one.
The Bill addresses a genuine and long-standing injustice in our economy. Small businesses should not be forced to bankroll large ones. They should not have to spend weeks chasing invoices instead of serving customers and creating jobs, and they should not face insolvency because another business has chosen to treat prompt payment as optional. We look forward to working constructively across the House to ensure that the final legislation delivers the robust protections that small businesses, contractors and the self-employed have waited to see for many years. Consequently, I support the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my small business interests, as set out in the register. I welcome the chance to speak on this Bill for the first time, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. Most of all, I thank the Minister for his introduction, his previous engagement and the genuine expertise that he brings to this subject.
I begin by reaffirming the support of these Benches for the broad provisions of the Bill. Industrial strategy must allow smaller businesses to both survive and compete with larger firms, so entrenching good payment practices, tackling asymmetry in the construction industry and increasing the powers of the Small Business Commissioner are all sensible aims.
A number of interesting questions have been raised on late payment terms, specifically around the 45-day and 60-day limits. Good questions addressing this issue were asked by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Holmes, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. But I would like to press on this: the new payment term must inevitably be balanced against the ability of businesses to arrange their finances and pay. To assist the House, could the Minister outline the trade-offs between the 45-day and 60-day payment limits, which have already been considered in the decisions taken in the Bill?
I note, for example, that the impact assessment suggests that 350,000 more small businesses might be caught by a change from 60 to 45 days. Can the Minister confirm that those numbers are roughly correct? Has the impact assessment or any assessment that the Minister has seen looked at precisely what the financial impact of that would be for those businesses? I can see merit in both sides of the argument, but it would help the House to understand the logic behind the conclusions that have been made.
I also understand the logic behind a timeframe for resolving disputes. Businesses that delay payments should not be able to raise a dispute within the timeframe and then delay payment indefinitely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has just noted. The existence of this possibility undermines the principle behind the new deadline for raising disputes. That said, I am cautious about the impact of a deadline on resolving disputes. The value of payment disputes that will fall under Clause 7 will have a very large range, so enacting an arbitrary timeframe of, say, 14 days would disincentivise large disputes being brought forward and divert resources towards ensuring they get resolved within the deadline. There is a risk of creating a bottleneck around whichever the dispute deadline would be. However, I recognise the worry associated with an open-ended resolution timeline, so if the noble Baroness and the Minister believe that this worry can be reconciled with my reservations, I would be very happy to work with them as the Bill progresses.
I take this opportunity to repeat the concern my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral raised about the scrapping of retention payments, which we otherwise support. In their impact assessment, the Government stated that they would seek to remedy the removal of this insurance option by
“working with industry to find other ways of making sure construction suppliers provide a good service”.
That is surely the right approach. Purchasers must have available means to seek redress in the case of defects or defaults, a point ably argued by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie. This is particularly the case in the public sector, as public money must have adequate protection against underperforming workmanship. I hope the Minister can today update the House on the steps taken with the industry towards providing that assurance. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, noted, other public bodies and various public authorities, in particular, local authorities, can be habitual late payers. Public bodies must set an example when they are the ones driving reform. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to cut back on late public payments? Can he also set out a timeline for phasing out public retention payments, perhaps before the three-year transition period culminates? There are a number of questions around this subject that deserve answers.
I also look forward very much to the debates on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which had considerable merit. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Clevedon, also raised some very good points about retention payments re-emerging as something else, so I look forward to the Minister’s views on what might be done to prevent that state of affairs developing.
I would also like to pick up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley on the definitions of micro, small, medium and large businesses. The Bill uses the Procurement Act 2023, alongside giving the Secretary of State powers to make definitions, but my noble friend is right to point to the Companies Act 2006, alongside the use of less complex entities by standard setters, not to mention the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which all use variations of definitions that essentially describe the same thing.
I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the House that the regulation-making power in Clause 3(7) will not be used further to deviate from any of the existing definitions of businesses. Perhaps more optimistically, does the Bill not present a chance to standardise the definitions of different sized businesses? We should use this opportunity to think about how we fundamentally categorise businesses, especially as low-headcount, high-turnover tech and AI businesses are in the ascendant. Using a full-time employee equivalent, rather than a simple nominal headcount, alongside a standardised turnover and balance sheet total amount, would be a more proportional and accurate way of categorising most businesses, although I recognise that there is some tension with the point I just made about new tech and AI-type businesses. It is needlessly bureaucratic that so many definitions exist across so much legislation. This has been a long-running issue on all sides of the House, so I hope the Minister will agree to work with us to resolve it through the later stages.
I recognise the concerns surrounding the Small Business Commissioner. A perfectly free and competitive market would, of course, negate the need for a third party to arbitrate disputes, but in the absence of such a market, we support expanding the remit of the commissioner’s office to deal with these instances. Moving responsibilities away from the courts is the right choice, but, as has been stated, this must come with sufficient resources. Similarly, in the absence of such a perfect market, I understand the concern that suppliers that raise consistent disputes or enter into proceedings with an influential customer may face being blacklisted. So, for the Small Business Commissioner to work as intended, it must have the trust of the businesses it works for, and this means ensuring against negative repercussions from raising a dispute. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my noble friend Lord Leigh and others for raising these concerns, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on enforcement and resources, as noted by, among others, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Risby. For example, does the Minister have any idea how many staff work for the Office of the Small Business Commissioner, what resources they currently have and whether they will be increased in anticipation of this new legislation?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, noted, a more fundamental concern with this part of the Bill is the expansive Henry VIII powers it gives to the Secretary of State. New Section 2G, inserted by Clause 18, permits a wide array of unilateral actions, including the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the disclosure of information and exclude specific disputes. I understand that the former could be used to protect smaller businesses, but it could also be used to protect the poor practices of larger firms, so I would welcome some clarity on this. Similarly, I wonder whether the Minister could specify in which circumstances the Secretary of State would consider excluding disputes. This has the potential to be very wide-ranging, so some specificity would be appreciated. Indeed, if the Minister is able to give that clarity today, can he say why the specific measures are not in the Bill?
My noble friend Lord Leigh’s points about the UN goals and large companies’ practice with regard to forcing their suppliers to address these complex rules were of merit and worthy of further discussion. I look forward to the Minister’s views on them.
Overall, we have some concerns, but this Bill marks an important step in the right direction for this Government’s industrial strategy. It is orientated towards helping small businesses survive and thrive, and I look forward to working with noble Lords on both sides of the House in the coming weeks.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who stepped in for the noble Lord, Lord Fox—for an informed, thoughtful and constructive debate and for their kind words about my opening speech. The quality of today’s debate has demonstrated not only the breadth of expertise in your Lordships’ House, but the seriousness with which Members regard the persistent problem of late and unfair payment practices across our country. I will try to respond to as many noble Lords’ questions as possible within my allocated time. If I am unable to address every point raised today, especially some of the technical and more detailed questions, I will ask my officials to review Hansard carefully, write to noble Lords accordingly and place copies of those responses in the Library of the House.
First, there was broad agreement throughout today’s debate on one fundamental principle: businesses that do the work should be paid on time, and that includes social enterprises, as indicated by my noble friend Lady Thornton. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, again showed the knowledge he brings to the House. He asked whether there should be additional responsibilities on auditors of large companies to sample payments and report on them. The noble Lord, Lord Risby, asked whether some form of register could check on the payment practices of these large companies. As noble Lords know, credit rating agencies exist, and many of them are well known for their credit reports on big companies, although it might be necessary to pay for their services. I will take this idea back to the department and share it with colleagues to see whether it is possible. Obviously, there is the question of how much such a register would cost; nevertheless, I will bring this idea to the attention of my officials.
While the Bill does not impose new duties on auditors, I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that in 2025 the Government introduced legislation to require large companies to report on their payment practices in their directors’ reports. Noble Lords will appreciate that there were also some changes to the definition of some of these businesses, and the impact assessment has found in favour that some companies have been moved from medium-sized to small, which basically reduces their reporting requirements as well. That is a good sign. We have to be mindful of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made about the definition of SMEs. I for one have had many conversations with him about that, and it is something that we have to bear in mind. For the purposes of the Bill, we have to define it as it stands, and I will refer to it in another part of my winding up. I confirm that we intend to introduce secondary legislation requiring boards of audit committees of underperforming large companies to explain poor payment performance and outline improvement plans.
Various noble Lords have asked about the number of days and whether it should be 45, 60 or even 30. From our consultation, 60 days seems to strike a fair balance between helping small businesses get paid in a timely manner and recognising that in many sectors 30 or 45 days may have been a step too far at this stage. Take the publishing sector, for example: some smaller publishers would need more than 30 or even 60 days to pay some of the larger publishers, and they have a special arrangement for that. That is provided for within the limited exemptions in the Bill where the purchaser is a much smaller organisation than the larger one.
We will continue our work to encourage businesses to pay even faster. For that matter, there is no reason why businesses cannot pay within 60 days—or 30 or 45—if they offer a discount, which many businesses do. Those practices are currently in place and, as many noble Lords have mentioned, a matter for private commercial negotiation between companies. The maximum is 60 days, but there is no reason why businesses cannot pay faster. Obviously, we will work closely with the Small Business Commissioner, who operates the fair payment code.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the Bill could apply to foreign or overseas companies. The noble Lord, Lord Risby, also asked a question about that, particularly where UK firms are owed money by companies based abroad. I confirm that the Bill applies to commercial contracts that fall within the scope of UK law, including where a qualifying business is operating in the UK or where the contract is governed by UK law. Subject to consultation, we intend to introduce an exemption from the 60-day maximum payment term for contracts for imports and exports. That is to ensure that UK-based companies trading overseas with non-UK-based companies are not disadvantaged by having to offer much stricter terms. Noble Lords will know that the whole process of import and export requires time after goods arrive in the country for customs clearance and so on, so additional time will be required for some of these payments to be made. Measures in the Bill such as maximum payment terms, statutory interest on late payments and stronger rights to redress will therefore apply where the contractual relationship is within scope.
I turn to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. First, on how the Government intend to define the size of a business, I mentioned that earlier in relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about the different definitions. For the purposes of the Bill and the exemptions to the maximum payment terms, we intend to define business sizes through secondary legislation following further targeted consultation. For the purposes of the Small Business Commissioner’s new functions, the definition of a small business is included in Section 2(1) of the Enterprise Act 2016.
The Bill provides a revised definition of larger businesses at paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. A small business is a business that has a headcount of fewer than 50 staff, whose registered office or principal place of business is in the UK and that is not a statutory authority. On businesses not using the adjudication scheme due to a conflict with these suppliers, while some small businesses may be reluctant to take action forward against a larger business, that does not mean we should not help businesses that are prepared to take it.
The Small Business Commissioner handled over 700 late payment cases last year, recovering over £1.5 million of late payments for small businesses. This is an alternative dispute resolution scheme designed to support businesses to resolve their disputes in a fair and impartial way. It is a very cost-effective way, rather than going through a costly and lengthy legal process.
On the definition of persistence, I assure the noble Lord that a larger business that persistently engages in poor payment practices is one that engages in poor practices on a sufficient number of occasions for it to represent a pattern of behaviour; it is persistent and regular bad practice. In deciding whether to carry out an investigation, the commissioner will have to consider the extent and impact of suspected poor payment practices, the resources needed to carry out that investigation and whether it is proportionate to do so.
On the point about draft regulations, I assure the noble Lord that there is a statutory duty to consult regarding the regulations, which the Government intend to commence as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The Government will also need to secure the consent of all devolved Governments where relevant, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft legislation and actively approve it before it becomes law.
I turn to the various points mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. I thank him for his engagement with me so far, and I look forward to meeting him next week to discuss his thoughts on the Bill. In our engagement with small businesses on the issue of late payment, the question of cleared funds, where money gets cleared in the bank account, has not been cited as a primary concern. Consequently, we have deliberately avoided prescribing cleared funds in statute as that would introduce rigidity, risk disputes over banking processes beyond a payer’s control and constrain innovation in payment systems and practices. We have to practise what we preach. For comparison, my department, the Department for Business and Trade, currently pays 95% of its invoices within five days and 99% within 30 days, and that is a pretty good record.
On the point about verification, the Bill includes restrictions and makes clear that these must be proportionate and not used to delay payment unnecessarily. Taken together with stronger transparency and enforcement, these measures materially improve suppliers’ position while preserving the flexibility needed for the framework to operate effectively across a modern and evolving economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about resources for the Small Business Commissioner. The SBC is required to publish an annual report and audited accounts, which will include details of staffing and resources as well as activity undertaken. The SBC will continue to provide information on its resources. The Government can confirm that the SBC will be provided with the additional resources needed to carry out its new functions.
I turn to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne—several other noble Lords also asked about this—on the time needed to pay and when payment is due. We want businesses to be clear when the payment period begins and ends, helping to provide clarity for businesses about when they get paid. The events listed in new Section 2B(1) are applicable in all contracts related to the supply of goods and services, and form part of the existing statutory framework in relation to late payment. Requiring businesses to use one of the four triggers will help to provide clarity and consistency for businesses about when they will get paid.
In relation to devolution, I can confirm that my officials have had extremely positive conversations with officials within the devolved Governments and the newly elected Governments in Wales and Scotland. The Bill sets out the consent mechanism where powers impact on devolved powers. This respects the devolved settlements and I am confident that the devolved Governments will be able to recommend and grant legislative consent Motions to this Bill.
I turn now to the various points from my noble friend Lady Alexander and thank her for her contributions. With relation to the commissioner having jurisdiction over construction, the Small Business Commissioner will have the power to provide advice, information and training to all businesses, regardless of their sector. This will build on its work within the fair payment code, which includes 212 construction company awardees. The proposed adjudication powers for the Small Business Commissioner will not apply to construction contracts due to the existing statutory dispute resolution mechanisms under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. However, if a construction business enters into a non-construction contract, the commissioner’s adjudication powers would apply.
On the definition of retention, which I think probably all noble Lords have mentioned, we believe that the definition is robust and comprehensive and are confident that it will capture all behaviours amounting to a retention practice. We have also provided the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definition in Clause 16. The power is intended to be used where there is evidence that the ban is being circumvented creatively, defeating the intention of Parliament.
On commitment to monitoring avoidance behaviours, the Government will work with the Construction Leadership Council and construction clients to develop practical approaches to minimising defects, as well as working with the financial services sector to identify ways of developing a surety product it can bring to market for the construction sector, including for small businesses through the supply chain.
Finally, on simplifying the transition arrangements, we recognise that abolishing retentions represents a significant change for the industry and its clients. Therefore, a transition period is required for industry to prepare and for the market in alternative surety products to develop. The requirements in the transition period also seek to address poor payment practices for retentions in the lead-up to the ban. The Government will also support industry implementation through guidance and stakeholder engagement, ensuring that the transition is clear and manageable, particularly for smaller businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords mentioned retention and asked how we can ensure that defects are addressed. Despite the existence of retention for over 100 years, it is clear from our consultations that this is not an effective means of preventing defects or even remediating significant problems. The Government are committed to working with industry and surety providers to improve quality and eliminate defects.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked about funding for the Small Business Commissioner, aligning with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The Small Business Commissioner is grant funded by the Department for Business and Trade and will be provided with the additional resources needed to carry out its additional functions. The commissioner will also have the power to recover the costs of investigations, enforcement and adjudication.
The measures in this Bill to deal with late payment are proportionate and will address persistent poor payment behaviour. However, they are not so punitive as to disincentivise doing business with small businesses. A 60-day payment term, for example, is perfectly reasonable and achievable. Looking at some debtors’ books and creditors’ ledgers, I would not say that 60 days is normal, but it can be bearable.
The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Risby, asked about public authorities’ payment terms of 30 days and 60 days. Public authorities are already required to pay within 30 days under the Procurement Act 2023. It is right that the Government lead by example— I mentioned the example set by the Department for Business and Trade—and maintain that high standard. In the private sector, the Bill addresses a wider range of commercial relationships, and a 60-day maximum strikes the right balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about fining global companies. I think this is an opportunity to thank him for his contribution, especially his knowledge on AI and digital products and all that, which I will obviously share with my officials. The Bill applies to commercial contracts that have a sufficient connection to the UK and for government by UK law. The commissioner will have powers to address poor payment behaviour of those carrying on business in the UK.
I am running out of time. I will have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because she asked about a couple of technical points. I will ensure that she gets a letter from the officials—likewise the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the question of a whistleblower and the FCC.
Throughout today’s debate, noble Lords from across the House have brought valuable expertise and experience. As this Bill progresses through Committee and subsequent stages, I look forward to constructive discussions with noble Lords across the House to ensure that the legislation achieves its objective in a proportionate and effective manner. Late payment destroys cash flow, it destroys confidence, and too often it destroys businesses altogether. This Government are determined to change that. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in today’s debate, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Leong
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 to 25, Schedule 4, Clauses 26 to 32, Title.
Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Household Tumble Dryers) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:32 - Division on Baroness Hoey’s Motion - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 66 - Baroness Hoey’s Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hoey
That this House regrets the process that led to the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Household Tumble Dryers) Regulations 2026, because (1) the alignment with Northern Ireland the regulations seek to achieve requires the UK to follow EU law, and (2) they will lead to increased costs and lower efficacy associated with heat pump tumble dryers.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before I move my Motion, I have just returned from Northern Ireland and want to say how shocked people are in Northern Ireland at the terrible atrocity that took place last night. This is not the time to discuss it, but we do need answers and there will have to be proper inquiry. I am sure we want to send all our best wishes to the victim and his family.
Some regulations are very technical in nature, and the effects are not felt widely by the public immediately, but the regulations before us today have a very clear and practical effect that will impact the lives of most households in the country, particularly families. Very simply, this regulation bans the sale of new conventional tumble dryers—that is, convector and vented tumble dryers—from January 2027. From then on, the only new tumble dryers that people in England, Wales and Scotland will be able to buy will be heat-pump tumble dryers. Quite apart from the nanny state restriction of choice because of the Government’s obsession with net zero, the legislation is problematic.
While some people may say that they might be cheaper to run—there are real disputes about that—there is no doubt that heat pump tumble dryers are markedly more expensive to buy than conventional tumble dryers. The last thing that people need at the moment, I would have thought, is those extra costs. The most important thing to me on this is that heat pump tumble dryers work only at ambient temperatures, so they will not work in garages or outhouses in winter, unless and until people start to heat those rooms that previously went unheated. I am not sure how the Minister can say how that is an environmental win.
If we are to understand this SI, we have to look at it in the wider context and at what happened in March last year. Legislation was then published that banned shops in Northern Ireland buying in any new conventional convector or vented tumble dryers from 1 July that year; they were given until March this year to clear their existing stock. Since then, the only new tumble dryers that Northern Ireland shops have been able to buy in are heat pump tumble dryers. Yesterday, a shop in Northern Ireland explained that it has 11 brand new condenser tumble dryers that it will have to scrap, because to sell them would be illegal. How is that going to be good for the environment?
The Explanatory Notes for last year’s regulations explained simply that:
“Northern Ireland continues to apply EU rules on ecodesign and energy labelling, as per the terms of the Windsor Framework”.
So in Northern Ireland we were bound by EU net-zero legislation under the Windsor Framework, which effectively partitions the United Kingdom, keeping Northern Ireland in the EU. The whole point of leaving the EU—as I thought, certainly—would be to make our own laws without being overruled by a majority of other countries.
Speaking about the matter in this House on 26 March last year, I highlighted how the EU legislation on tumble dryers was being imposed without even consulting people in Northern Ireland or businesses. It had to be imposed because the Windsor Framework required it. I said then that it demonstrated how the failure to deliver leaving the European Union for Northern Ireland
“is actually undermining Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, aligning Great Britain—drip, drip, drip—with Northern Ireland and thus the European Union”.—[Official Report, 26/3/25; col. 1778.]
In fact, the Minister in the other place said that exactly. She said that
“it is very likely that Great Britain will seek to meet similar standards … Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis and maintain the UK’s internal market”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 31/3/25; col. 4.]
In this context, we should be clear that the reason why the sale of new vented and condenser tumble dryers is being banned in England, Wales and Scotland is that the EU has already banned it in Northern Ireland and having the ban in one part of the UK but not the other does not work if we are to maintain any semblance of a common market across the whole UK. But of course we must see that what is really going on is an object lesson in relation to the problems with the Government’s much more ambitious dynamic alignment project to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland, as set out in the European partnership Bill. This approach is fatally flawed for Great Britain, as it is for Northern Ireland. Rather than respecting the once-in-a-generation referendum, the legislation before us today, set out in the broader context of the European partnership Bill, is part of a larger effort to not only undermine that vote, in the sense of using divergence problems flowing from the denial of leaving in one part of the UK to undermine Brexit across the rest of the country. It is actually almost worse than rejoining the EU.
The Minister might tell me—I expect he will—that I should be pleased that we now have a Government committed to bringing GB into alignment with the EU, because this will help mitigate GB-Northern Ireland border difficulties. Quite apart from the fact that it will not mitigate the customs border in any way, while an SPS deal might reduce frictions it will not remove the SPS border because their proposed SPS deal is a GB deal and not a UK deal. I hope the Minister will explain that, because what we need is a more profound and patriotic way of looking at this. In this context, if anyone thinks that the answer to the injustice of the disenfranchisement now of the people of Northern Ireland is to have that same disenfranchisement for the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, I am not quite sure that they have not lost the plot.
The difficulty with this particular set of regulations has been further compounded by the fact that the Government have brought them forward on the proposed basis that they become law by default, with no parliamentary debate or vote, under the negative assent procedure. The only reason we are having this debate today is my Motion. Even in the democratically elected House next door—the other place—there is now a prayer standing in the name of some 46 Members, including the leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Kemi Badenoch. It still has not been given time for a debate. Six parties have signed it including, I am pleased to see, a Labour MP.
Finally, I want to point out that there is now a very real shortage of new tumble dryers in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is having to get its heat-pump tumble dryers from Great Britain, yet a significant portion of those tumble dryers currently being sold in Great Britain are not allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. There seems to be confusion about why this is, with some suggesting that to be legal in Northern Ireland they must contain a certain kind of gas, while others have suggested that there are some heat-pump tumble dryers on the market in GB that do not meet the 80% condenser efficiency minimum required by the EU regulation. Whatever the reason, though, the advice last week was that the new heat-pump tumble dryers meeting the Northern Ireland specification will not be ready to be shipped to Northern Ireland from GB until the autumn.
I have five specific short questions for the Minister. Will the GB market be ready to provide the requisite number of heat-pump tumble dryers—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me. Will the noble Baroness sit down, please? Can the noble Baroness sit down, please?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
No, can the noble Baroness sit down? This debate is limited to an hour. Her time is up, please.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
What assessment have the Government made of the environmental impact of people having to start heating garages and sheds during the winter?
This is a ridiculous way of dealing with an important issue. We get one hour now on a statutory instrument and people have to put their names down in advance, which is why there are so few people speaking today. I beg to move my Motion, but it has been handled extremely badly by the Government.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate and we need to respect the time limits.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have to start by declaring an interest as the owner of a heat-pump tumble dryer. There is a real question as to who is losing the plot in this debate. I am sorry that there are not more people here interested in the issue of tumble dryers. I have become a bit of an expert over the last few days, since deciding to speak in this debate.
First, I have a question: how many tumble dryers are manufactured in the United Kingdom for domestic use? The honest answer is that specific figures for tumble-dryer manufacture in the UK are hard to come by from publicly available sources, but what is clear is something significant: there is very little domestic manufacturing to measure. The UK market is heavily reliant on imports from Turkey, China and Poland. In practice, virtually all tumble dryers sold in the UK are manufactured overseas. The major brands operating here—Bosch, Beko, Whirlpool, Electrolux, Samsung and Miele—are all produced elsewhere.
This suggests that the idea that this is some sort of Brexit issue, let alone making it about Northern Ireland, is fallacious. Even without these regulations, tumble dryers in the UK—and on both sides of the Irish Sea—will in future be the heat-pump version anyway. All this stuff from Brexiteers about being a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker is nonsense when it comes to domestic electrical equipment. The shift in European rules about such equipment that is already under way has taken the decision away from us. It is nothing to do with Brexit; it is about our position in the world economy. We do not make them. We buy them from elsewhere, and other people are not prepared to produce something that does not have a mass market. The market for condenser dryers in the UK is miniscule. These regulations simply recognise and govern the inevitable consequence of where we are.
My second question is: do we believe in net zero? I have to say I despair at the mover of the Motion’s idea that this is something about a nanny state. I and the majority of people in this country believe this is about saving the planet. To attain net zero, there are big steps we have to take in terms of power generation, but achieving our net-zero target requires myriad tiny steps. This is one of them. This is a small step on the way to saving the planet. For those of us who are concerned about the future, these regulations are an essential element in the overall policy.
The question has been raised of how significant these regulations are. Unfortunately, the regret Motion is simply wrong. It refers to
“increased costs and lower efficacy associated with heat pump tumble dryers”.
As far as cost is concerned, there are costs involved in the switch, as set out in the impact statement, but these are initial costs that are more than outweighed by the subsequent savings in running costs.
Page 9 of the impact statement sets out quite clearly:
“While costs in the early years of the policy are positive, due to the increased cost of purchasing Heat Pump tumble dryers over other technologies (around £40 on average), in later years of the policy costs turn negative as the much longer lifetime of heat pump tumble dryers mean consumers will not need to replace them as often … As energy bill savings (as well as Carbon and air quality savings) are realised across the policy lifetime, in addition to the product cost savings, overall NPV”—
net present value—
“is positive”.
I have done some research on tumble dryers. I looked at a recent edition of Which? from the Consumers’ Association. I do not think it has a particular axe to grind on this issue, and the magazine confirms the impact statement. Which? found that the heat pump versions cost less than half as much to run as the old-fashioned versions. Most tellingly, all the tumble dryers in the Which? report rated as best buys were heat pump versions. They work better, as assessed by the Consumers’ Association. I have a couple more quotes—I have got the time—from Which?:
“Heat pump tumble dryers recycle warm air for better efficiency. This makes them by far the most energy-efficient of all the tumble dryer types available”.
These are not theoretical advantages; they are there and endorsed by Which?
It appears, as the impact assessment also suggests, that the cost differential is declining. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asserted there was a big cost difference but did not provide us with any figures. Well, they are all there in the Which? report. The cheapest best buy heat pump tumble dryer was £299—only £60 more than the cheapest condenser version, which had a significantly lower test score. In other words, that £60 in the figures calculated by Which? will be recouped in less than a year. Heat pump tumble dryers get higher ratings from Which? and it has assessed that they are cheaper to run within a year. I think we really need to look at this in a sensible way, rather than trying to make it a Brexit or even a Northern Ireland issue.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to debate this important SI—although I am still a bit mystified as to why she is so unhappy, since this realigns the UK with the EU, and this would seem to mean that Northern Ireland is in alignment too. More importantly, given the existential climate crisis and household energy bills, I would have thought everybody would support this SI. It is such a win for both consumers and the environment. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, we need to take every step we can. The climate crisis means that every possible effort needs to be made not to use energy unnecessarily and to be as efficient as possible in its use.
I think there is a hierarchy in how to dry laundry, and I have long thought that tumble dryers should probably be at the bottom of the hierarchy. For those lucky enough to have outside space, using a tumble dryer is a thoroughly bad use of energy, except on really rainy days. I have been a bit of an evangelist about this, to the extent that I have given friends nice wooden clothes pegs as a hint when they are always talking about using their tumble dryers but they have outside space.
Before noble Lords ask, “What about the rainy days?”, I have lived nearly all my life in the West Country—Somerset and Devon. Even on the wettest of West Country days, it is rare to get three of them consecutively that are such rainy days that you cannot hang the washing out. Hanging out the washing, of course, takes extra time. That is the biggest downside. Besides the big energy saving of using wind and sun to dry things, it makes clothes last longer, in my opinion.
Before I turn to the detail of the SI, I must ask the Minister whether the Government will consider bringing in a provision for flat owners and renters that would make freeholders not unreasonably withhold the right to dry laundry on balconies or in courtyards. I declare an interest as a flat owner where the freeholder forbids laundry to be dried outside, even though we have a nice courtyard where the breeze would dry it. The Government recently brought in the right for people to request to have pets, which should not be unreasonably withheld. I hope that the Minister can have a look at whether freeholders might be asked—or it might even be legislated for—not to unreasonably withhold the right to hang your laundry out. That is the first thing that you should be doing if you possibly can.
One thing that really surprised me in this SI, when I read through the comparisons, was how a heated airer is not very efficient compared with a heat pump tumble dryer. The heat pump tumble dryer is the most energy efficient overall. There are 17 million tumble dryers in the UK, and they account for 2% to 3% of UK energy use. With heated airers, you sometimes need to run a dehumidifier alongside them, and that might add 0.2 kilowatts to 1 kilowatt during the drying period. With that, the combined energy is often similar to or lower than a conventional condenser dryer but not lower than a heat pump dryer. It is quite clear that the heat pump dryers really are the way to go.
A good reason to do it sooner—and I am glad that the date is set for pretty soon—is that we do not want to become a dumping ground for the manufacturers of the old design of less efficient dryers when the EU is no longer a possible market.
In conclusion, heat pump tumble dryers use much less energy. They are better for people’s household bills and, over the 20 years, the impact assessment says that there would be a household saving of about £910 per household. But actually the upfront costs when you buy the new heat pump tumble dryer would be paid off in about two years. All in all, there is everything to recommend this SI, and nothing against it.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the gap. I want first of all to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in her remarks about the incident in north Belfast—the area I had the honour to represent in the other place for almost 20 years—and totally endorse what she said about that horrific incident. I also want to congratulate her on bringing this SI debate forward, because without this regret Motion we would not be able to debate the matter and hear the contributions of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked what this was about in terms of Northern Ireland. Paragraph 13.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that this SI
“does … relate to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU”.
On its relevance to Northern Ireland, paragraph 4.2 states that it is bringing the law
“into line with Great Britain’s requirements … This alignment is intended to maintain regulatory consistency with the European Union, as well as Northern Ireland further to the Windsor Framework Agreement”.
So it is relevant, as set out in the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum, because otherwise they would not have mentioned those issues. Of course it is relevant, because this legislation has been the law in Northern Ireland since 4 March 2025. Nobody in Stormont debated it, nobody in the other place debated it, and nobody in this House debated it, but it has been the law in part of the United Kingdom for many months—for over a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has raised important issues about the expense and the extra costs, and I hope the Minister will respond. But whatever your views on this SI, whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing in substance, the important point is that people in Great Britain have the opportunity to debate it and decide. In Northern Ireland, we are not afforded that luxury at all. It has been imposed upon us—and that is the point the noble Baroness has sought to bring forward.
It is a matter that should be of fundamental concern to every democrat in the United Kingdom, not just those in Northern Ireland. It should concern legislators in Northern Ireland, it should concern legislators elected to the other place, and it should concern us here. Why on earth do people want a situation where a form of colonialism is going on? This SI affords us the opportunity to bring that out.
As for aligning, I have the utmost respect for what the noble Baroness who spoke previously said, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, aligning piecemeal, bit by bit, here and there, does not solve the problem of the trade arrangements with Northern Ireland. It leaves in place the customs barrier and the distinct situation whereby Northern Ireland is subject to laws across 300 areas of our economy and wider, made by a foreign political entity in its interest and imposed on the people of Northern Ireland.
I congratulate the noble Baroness and thank her for bringing this matter to our attention.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, begin by sending our thoughts to the victim and his family in north Belfast. I believe we have an Urgent Question on this matter tomorrow, and we will be able to express our thoughts more fully at that time.
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for allowing us to have this debate today. As I have said in previous such debates, it is very important that Parliament has an opportunity to debate these matters. However, I also welcome the introduction of speaking lists for regret Motions. Although it is important that we debate these matters, it is equally important that the time allocated to them is proportionate and representative of a cross-section of views from across this House.
These regulations seek to ensure that in future, tumble dryers are more energy-efficient heat pump models, and that consumers have better information about the tumble dryers they are purchasing. More energy-efficient machines will result in lower running costs for the consumer. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has not put his name down to speak today, but I think he would have wanted to ask a question about the additional costs for colder parts of the UK, including my original home country of Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland.
I note that heat pump dryers have been available in the UK since 2010 and that, by the time these regulations were being developed, three-quarters of new tumble dryers sold in the UK were already heat pump models. From these Benches, we support these measures as a step in the right direction—although, as my noble friend Lady Miller has just made clear in her speech, for many people these measures do not go quite far enough.
The regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raises two points of concern: on the process, that is to say, the fact that Great Britain is aligning itself with the EU’s legislation on tumble dryers, and on the substance of the statutory instrument itself, which she has said will cost consumers more. I shall take each of these points in turn, starting with the substance of the regulations.
Tumble dryers consume around 9% of domestic energy consumption, so a reduction of energy usage will have a substantial impact. Heat pump dryers are not only more energy efficient but have a longer lifespan, as others have said, potentially saving the consumer more than £900 in terms of energy usage across the machine’s lifespan. I hope that the Minister will confirm these figures in his closing remarks. Any additional upfront costs of purchasing these new, more energy-efficient machines should be offset against the savings to the consumer in energy consumption.
I have to say that I have never understood why people are against progress towards using less energy at a time when energy is becoming increasingly expensive. It should also be noted that these measures apply only for future purchases. People can continue to use and repair their current tumble dryers until they need new ones. I am somebody who has lived in flats and apartments for the last 30 years and I have had to use tumble dryers as outside drying options are not available: drying clothes on balconies is frequently prohibited and drying spaces in shared garden spaces, as my noble friend Lady Miller has said, are often just not available. People who rent flats are usually going to be much more concerned about the running costs than about the purchasing costs of tumble dryers.
I welcome the detailed impact assessment carried out on these regulations last year, but we query why the consultation took place between 17 July and 14 August last summer. Can the Minister say why they chose a time when many people might have been on their summer holiday? Can he say a little more about the consultation process, including whether consultation took place with representatives across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Tumble dryers can be a major cause of house fires. Can the Minister give reassurances that the heat pump household tumble dryers are less likely to be a fire hazard than older types of machine, such as gas, air vented or condenser models? It is not strictly to do with this statutory instrument, but I would also be very interested if the Minister could say a little about recycling measures for old domestic tumble dryers.
Although these regulations are not covered by the three policy areas of dynamic alignment, as such, they are an example of the kinds of issues we will face if and when we align more closely with the EU. That brings me to the second point in the regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: namely, the process of aligning on these matters with the EU. In previous regret Motions, many colleagues from Northern Ireland have understandably expressed their concern about Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK through the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor Framework, and about creating a border in effect across the Irish Sea.
Speaking to the Conservative Post about the regulations we are debating this evening, Jim Allister MP, a firm opponent of the Windsor Framework, said in April this year:
“Although the tumble dryer legislation is not formally part of the Reset, it reflects its underlying logic, bringing Great Britain into alignment with EU law, partly to prevent divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain”.
In that sense, I agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that it is not entirely clear why those who oppose the Windsor Framework should not welcome these provisions. The whole UK will be following these EU proposals, which will reduce energy consumption by our citizens.
As we move towards greater dynamic alignment, I believe it is increasingly important that both your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons have a role in decision-shaping, as well as parliamentary oversight of the Government, in this process. When we were still in the EU, we had a direct role in decision-shaping, through our participation in the EU institutions. These are, no doubt, matters which we shall return to—over many hours, I am sure—in the EU partnership Bill, but it would be very useful to hear from the Minister what progress is being made in his department on how we can feed more effectively into the decision-shaping process as we align more with the European Union.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully associate ourselves with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lady Hoey following the appalling tragedy in Belfast. I move on from that, with great difficulty, to say that I welcome the fact that she has brought this issue to the attention of the House. She made a characteristically powerful speech, and I take this opportunity to say that in many respects she is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the important point that there is differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who I respect very much indeed—I will come back to some additional comments that he made—that I think we underestimate at our peril the importance and depth of emotion that is felt in Northern Ireland when measures are brought forward that have a significant difference in implementation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, it is important to recognise that that will be the case under various agreements in the past, but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made, and that I emphasise, is that there has been no debate accorded to this measure in Northern Ireland. That is not something we should be proud of in this House or proud of in the United Kingdom. I think that the point was worthy of being made, and it underpins the depth of emotion that was behind the comments of my noble friend Lady Hoey. She is right: these regulations will impact the lives of many households across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is also right to say that the operating costs moving forward should lead to savings for households and consumers, but he might have added that the upfront capital costs are quite significant. At a time when there are serious problems in the economy and people are really feeling the effect of high costs in their household budgets, adding significantly to the capital costs is important. It is therefore true that initially, through the capital cost element, these regulations are regressive and they will add further costs to the working men and women of this country, only to see the benefits in between two and four years, depending on whether you take the Which? report or additional reports on the subject, which have been manifold. From just six months’ time, people will be able to buy only heat pump tumble dryers, which are markedly more expensive up front. No wonder that, as a result, there is already a rush to buy the remaining stock of convector and vented tumble dryers. The important point was made that mandated models will work only at ambient temperatures, restricting their use in previously unheated rooms in domestic dwellings, which will then add to the operating costs.
Of course, I say that there has been little respect for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, because the point has been made very clearly that the Government have already banned shops from buying in any new conventional convectors or vented tumble dryers, on the Government’s preferred altar of EU net-zero legislation. This has already, as we have debated at significant length, increased costs in Northern Ireland, not least because of the increased costs of ferries and goods made in Northern Ireland, without attention to the increased costs imposed on the people and the companies living and operating in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Hoey was completely right when she said that
“it demonstrates how the mistreatment of Northern Ireland is creating pressures, not for this mistreatment to end, which would be great, but for attempts to be made to limit the destructive effects of divergence with the rest of the country”.—[Official Report, 26/3/25; col. 1778.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made the key point about divergence. She touched upon it, and she rightly emphasised that this will be debated in the future. I think the debate this evening is an object lesson in the problems with the Government’s much more ambitious GB dynamic alignment project to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland as set out in the European partnership Bill. My noble friend made the important point that a significant proportion of heat pump tumble dryers do not yet meet the EU minimum condensation efficiency of 80%, which the Northern Ireland tumble dryer regulations now require.
In the short time available, I will pick up on just one or two other points that are relevant to this debate. One is the consistent reference to a more circular, resource-efficient economy. It is misleading—particularly when referenced, I think, four times in the Explanatory Memorandum—to suggest that the circular economy is inherently desirable. Does the Minister agree with me that there are some inherent disadvantages with the circular economy in this instance, including the high initial costs? Businesses often face steep upfront investments to redesign products and implement new technologies. Also, there is the importance of changing consumer behaviour patterns.
Worst of all is the related and critical fact that the Government need, in our view, to bear down on the increasingly high electricity prices, which have now reached historically high levels. These high levels are borne by consumers, and they are key because these dryers are major electricity users. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board that the level of electricity prices in this country has to be addressed.
We on these Benches suggest—this is so important—that the Government would be wise to come forward with measures that address scrapping the carbon tax; axing carbon tax pricing to reduce artificial mark-ups on wholesale electricity prices; abolishing legacy renewable subsidies; temporarily scrapping the 5% VAT on domestic energy bills for three years; and lifting the ban on new oil and gas exploration licences to increase domestic supply and reduce reliance on expensive imported energy. I accept that that would not immediately impact on the price, but it would generate Treasury income, maximise job opportunities—not least in Aberdeen, where 1,000 jobs are being lost every month—and reduce emissions.
The impact assessment points to the relentless justification of central planning:
“The recent increase in electricity prices combined with consideration of pressure on the grid illustrate the need to ensure only the most energy efficient products are available on the market”.
The argument that is being put forward to us tonight is that the energy price increases, a result of the Government’s policies, justify making dryers more expensive—a punitive policy to offset another policy.
In the last 15 seconds, I reinforce strongly from these Benches the importance of the comments that have been made about the differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is vital, and we should always respect views that are put forward in this House on this important subject.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. Since we are talking substantially about Northern Ireland, I join noble Lords who have remarked on the horrific events over the last day. I very much endorse the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter and salute the bravery of those Northern Ireland citizens who intervened and certainly prevented a life being lost. My thoughts are with the people of Northern Ireland tonight, as I think are those of the whole Chamber. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for proposing this Motion and will come to one or two things she said. I very much welcome her initiative, inasmuch as it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly why the Government believe these regulations are important and necessary.
The regulations form part of a long-standing framework that seeks to improve the energy performance of products, reducing bills for consumers and supporting a more secure and efficient energy system. At their core, ecodesign and energy labelling policies aim to improve the energy efficiency of products, reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, and save consumers and businesses money over time. They are therefore very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned about the whole question of whether we believe in net zero and what we do about the emissions, efficiency and energy output of the products and services we consume.
Energy labelling complements this by ensuring that consumers have clear, comparable information at the point of purchase, allowing them to make informed choices and driving the market towards more efficient products. These principles are well established, and the framework was brought into domestic GB law by the last Government following the UK’s exit from the European Union, at which point we retained the ability to update and amend such regulations over time.
Before turning to the specific matters related to the content of this SI, I think it is important to address the process that has been applied here. This instrument has been made under the negative parliamentary procedure, which is provided for under the existing ecodesign and labelling framework regulations for alignment measures. It is important to note that this SI does not establish a new policy framework but operates within an existing one, updating requirements for a specific product group in line with those frameworks. As such, it is consistent with how Parliament has previously agreed that these matters should be handled.
I turn to the issue of Northern Ireland’s alignment with EU rules driving wider UK market decisions. The Government do not replicate EU rules for the sake of it. Our guiding principle is the appropriate regulatory landscape for UK consumers and businesses, removing unnecessary barriers to trade and ensuring protections for the UK’s internal market. These updated standards, as noble Lords have mentioned, have applied in Northern Ireland since July 2025. Prior to this legislation, we have therefore had a split in requirements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has created complexity for manufacturers and retailers. We took interim action to address this before the advent of this measure.
When we look at the regulatory landscape for household appliances, the Government have to take a pragmatic view on what is the right approach for the UK. When we consulted industry, it strongly supported this approach. Manufacturers and retailers made it clear that they want a single, coherent, high-standard set of requirements. They do not want the inefficiency of separate production lines. AMDEA, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, has repeatedly called on the Government to move at pace in aligning with EU requirements, reflecting the practical benefits of avoiding duplicate production lines, testing and certification. On tumble dryers specifically, AMDEA said that the
“adoption of these proposals is seen as essential for ensuring consistency in product design and construction, reducing market fragmentation, and supporting manufacturers’ ability to seamlessly supply tumble dryers across the British Isles”.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
The Minister has said several times that this legislation is justified on the grounds of simplicity and avoiding two different regimes. Could he therefore explain why the EU regulations on which it is based are only 10,000 words long, whereas the UK statutory instrument is 21,000 words long? How is that providing for similarity? Is there perhaps a bit of gold-plating going on here?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The similarity is in the provisions, which are very straightforward. They require new energy labels, a maximum energy efficiency index, an eco programme on the tumble dryer, minimum power on standby, having spare parts more accessible—this is very important for the circular economy aspect of the use of these parts—and meeting a minimum 80% condensation efficiency rate. That is in both the EU regulations and the UK regulations as they now apply. I suggest that the fact that the UK regulations are a little longer means that we are not slavishly aligning with the EU but putting in our own regulations; they closely mirror a number of the provisions I have set out from the EU but are not the same. I welcome the noble Lord making that point.
By establishing a unified approach, we are driving the market towards cutting-edge energy efficiency, permanently lowering household utility bills and reinforcing a strongly competitive and integrated UK market.
I turn to the impact of these regulations on costs and performance, particularly in relation to heat pump tumble dryers. The Government’s wider analysis of ecodesign measures is that improved efficiency leads to lower operating costs over the lifetime of the appliance, that consumers benefit from reduced energy consumption and that new requirements can deliver improvements in repairability and product life. For tumble dryers, analysis indicates that consumers will benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability under updated standards.
I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that tumble dryers account for around 9% of electricity use in the UK, so improving their efficiency will have a sizeable impact on household energy bills and the cost of living. A more efficient tumble dryer may have a slightly higher upfront purchase cost—perhaps £40 on the average £500 that a tumble dryer costs at the moment—but this cost is expected to be recovered within at most two years through improved efficiency. Even modest improvements in efficiency, as the noble Baroness mentioned, will translate directly into lower bills for millions of households. Over the 12-year lifetime of a standard tumble dryer, consumers can expect a net saving of approximately £200 on average, taking account of combined energy savings and deferred replacement costs. Even then, with the longer life of heat pump dryers, the benefits are greater over a 20-year period, particularly with the enhanced arrangements for repairs, with an estimated saving of over £900 on bills.
So, overall, while some products may cost more up front, they are cheaper to run, maintain and own over time. I therefore do not recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about additional expenses, costs and what have you. This SI is basically a win-win for consumers, the environment and manufacturers. It is a proportionate and technical update within an established framework, consistent with the procedures and powers set out in assimilated legislation and directed at delivering lower energy costs, lower bills and products that last longer and are cheaper to run and maintain.
I fully recognise that issues of relationships with our EU partners and our regulatory frameworks will continue to be debated in this House but, on the subject of this instrument, the choice is more straightforward. To withhold support for these regulations would not remove the underlying challenges; it would simply risk greater inconsistency, less clarity, weaker outcomes and increased costs for consumers and businesses alike. For that reason, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this debate, I do not believe that the case for regret has been established.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extensive response. I do not think that everyone in the Chamber will agree with his views on the question of costs. There is a dispute about that, but there is no dispute that these dryers cost more at the moment than conventional tumble dryers.
I was disappointed that I did not get to finish my questions to the Minister. As we still have a few minutes before the one hour is up, I will at least put them on the record. The Minister did not respond to my question about the fact that many people, particularly in rural areas, have their tumble dryers in their garages and elsewhere outside. That costs more. They will not work properly outside as they need a certain amount of heat, so that will cost people more.
The Minister also did not respond to the fact that there are now unused tumble dryers sitting in shops in Northern Ireland that they cannot sell. This is going to happen in the rest of Great Britain.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the way these SIs are handled now. The position has changed. We will have only one hour—a move presumably designed to stop Northern Ireland Peers, in particular, from talking late into the night on issues of great concern that cannot be raised in any other way. Also, if we get this new EU Bill that is coming through, we will see an awful lot more of these statutory instruments, and on a negative basis. So unless someone comes forward, there will be absolutely no debate and no discussion.
I think we should start to test that: to show that we will not be prepared to allow these things not to get debated and discussed. My Motion tonight is to regret the way this whole thing has been handled, and I would like to press it to a vote.
Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 April be approved.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this debate will deal with both the statutory instrument and the regret amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. These regulations make two principal amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) Regulations 2020. First, the regulations extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zone central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities will pay to use the central services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are intended to come into force on 1 September 2026.
As background, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter such zones. They have been introduced selectively where evidence shows that air quality is worse than the standards set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; where they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide in the local area; and where other options would not deliver the same results so quickly. There are currently seven clean air zones operated by local authorities in England: Bath and north-east Somerset, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Rotherham, and Tyneside.
The evidence indicates that clean air zones are having a positive effect. Between 2019 and 2024, in the areas of these cities, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%, including by around a third in Bristol, 40% in Bath and north-east Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. These results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact on shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our National Health Service.
To support local authorities with the introduction and operation of these clean air zones, in 2021 the previous Government established the “Drive in a clean air zone” central services. This allows drivers to check on a website whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for that clean air zone and, where necessary, pay the relevant charge. It also provides support for those who do not use digital services to make payments and assists local authorities with enforcement.
This brings me to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who in his regret amendment suggests that the statutory instrument would risk additional costs being passed on to motorists, who are already facing high fuel costs; would fail to provide sufficient assurance that drivers will be protected from any direct or indirect increase in clean air zone charges; and would extend the charging period until 31 March 2031, despite the continuing financial pressure on motorists.
I should say at this point that I wrote today to the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to clarify government estimates of cost recovery likely to result from this fee increase. This letter corrects information sent to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in May. I copied that letter to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We expect the fee increase to £4 per transaction to result in greater cost recovery, but this is not expected to be 100%.
To explain the history of this instrument, the 2020 regulations made by the previous Government permit a fee of £2 per vehicle until 31 March 2027. This was based on the assumption that by March 2027, the clean air zone central services would no longer be required, as local authorities would have achieved compliance with legal air pollution limits. The previous Government were not able to achieve this, and it is now clear that in some areas compliance with these limits will not be achieved until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisioned, and this instrument, by extending the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services.
The previous Government also failed to increase—at all—the central service fee designed to cover the Government’s cost of administering the service since it was introduced in 2020. Raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% for the lifetime of the central services from the financial year 2020-21 to 2030-31. To be clear, this still leaves the Government and the taxpayer subsiding these services to the tune of 10% of the overall cost. Through this fee increase, we are putting CAZ central services on a stable, sustainable footing.
I wish to reassure noble Lords on the question of the potential impact of this increase on motorists. We have been very clear with local authorities by letter that we expect them not to pass on any increase in costs to motorists. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges many people face. This will be manageable for the relevant authorities as most of the schemes are currently running a surplus—significant surpluses in some cases. It is not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses, in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, and not to generate income. For example, from the information published by the council in Bristol, we understand its CAZ surplus has been running to several millions per year, and the fee increase could reduce it by around £400,000 in 2026-27, £1.2 million in 2027-28 and £1 million in 2028-29.
I further reassure noble Lords that, should any local authority be in a shortfall because of the operating costs relating to its clean air zone, this will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules. We have ensured both that any costs will not be passed on to motorists and that any additional costs to local authorities whose schemes are not in surplus will be covered by the Government.
The noble Lord raises a concern about rising costs to motorists, including fuel charges, but this issue is separate from the administration of a clean air zone service and the internal fees we are speaking about today. We are backing drivers and businesses by extending the 5p fuel duty cut and extending the 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. This extension to the 5p duty is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120. The Government are also making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackling potholes and improving local road maintenance. Furthermore, we are delivering long-term funding through the road investment strategy, ensuring that a strategic road network continues to support economic growth and connectivity across the country. These measures demonstrate our commitment to easing the immediate pressures on motorists and investing in the future of our transport system.
I also wish to address the point raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the fee has not been reviewed or updated in line with inflation for six years and that charges set out in legislation should be reviewed regularly to avoid significant step changes in amounts. I cannot account for the previous Government’s inattention to this principle, as clean air zones have been operating for some years, but this Government now have the necessary data available from the past 12 to 18 months on the usage costs and revenue, and therefore it is an appropriate moment to revisit the fee structure considering the improved evidence base.
We will continue to monitor usage costs and revenue from the central services over the coming years, so that we can anticipate any further changes needed. Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Government will also work closely with the DVLA, which manages the clean air service, to ensure the smooth implementation of the revised fee when the regulations come into force. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee requested that, should further instruments be required to increase the fee or extend the period for which it is charged, the Explanatory Memorandum should include information, and we will do this in future, should it be necessary.
In conclusion, these regulations will ensure that the central services underpinning clean air zones continue to operate effectively and sustainably, supporting continuing improvements in air quality in towns and cities with clean air zones. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations will increase the fee payable in respect of clean air zone payments processed through the central services website from £2 to £4; risk additional costs being passed on to motorists who are already facing high fuel costs; fail to provide sufficient assurance that drivers will be protected from any direct or indirect increase in clean air zone charges; and extend the charging period until 31 March 2031 despite the continuing financial pressure on motorists.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying that if the purpose of the recent changes in procedure for dealing with statutory instrument regret amendments and fatal amendments was to limit the scrutiny applied to government instruments, it has already proved very successful. What we see is that there are three speakers in this debate and they are all from the Front Benches. I suggest that the use of the list system for this purpose is already showing signs of failure. That remark of course is not addressed to the Minister, who is not responsible for the change, but I think it is important that it should be said.
I take as my starting point what the Minister said about the fuel duty. He claimed credit for not increasing the fuel duty in a way that was envisaged by the Treasury, but that occurred only because of a sustained and effective campaign led by the Conservative Party. The Government were embarrassed into falling back on that because of those efforts. It is wrong that they should claim credit for it. Any motorist who thought they might be able to relax in the light of that circumstance obviously has to think again because we now have, in effect, another stealth tax on motorists.
The instrument doubles the fee paid by local authorities to the Secretary of State for each clean air zone payment—namely, every trip that incurs a clean air zone payment charge—that is processed through the central service. That is for all the cities mentioned by the Minister; I believe that London is not part of that system, but all the other cities that he mentioned certainly are. It doubles that from £2 to £4. The Government are trying to get away with that as a cost recovery item, and they say that they do not expect it to be passed on to motorists by local authorities.
But, if you take the case of Birmingham, for example, where the daily charge is £8, this is now fully half of the fee. Of course this is significant, and local authorities will seek to recover it one way or the other. The Minister says that they do not need to do that because local authorities are generating a surplus—it is true that many of them are—and he imagines that local authorities just sit there with the surplus in the bank smiling at it and counting it as it accumulates. But in fact those surpluses are used for desperately needed transport improvements in their cities. So, if they are to be told, “You can’t pass it on and you will have a smaller surplus to spend”, something will have to give—and it will be local transport improvements. In fact, that is very unlikely because those expenditure plans, which are often laid several years in advance, will require funding, and that funding will no longer be available from this source, so it will come out of the motorist’s pocket.
I appreciate that today the Minister copied me into his letter to the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and he has explained the levels of cost recovery that are now expected as a result of this measure being implemented. But there is no transparency, and nothing has been offered to us to show that the central system is operating efficiently or that it needs fully half the revenue from the fee. It will not be half in every city, admittedly—it is half in Birmingham because the fee is £8, and in Bath it is £9—but it is approximately half. Fully half of the fee, or approximately that, is being snaffled for a processing system when it could be spent—and is being spent—on necessary and important improvements.
The burden of these fees, and the increase that I feel confident in saying will ensue, does not fall evenly. The vehicles that fail to qualify for these clean air zones are typically older vehicles likely to be owned by people on lower incomes, older motorists and so forth. This is not an abstract consideration about clean air; it affects people’s lives.
The clean air zones themselves should wind up in the very near future. They are, after all, a measure that work only if they achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. But we now find that the other effect of this instrument is that they are being extended out as far as 2031. The reality is that this is almost certainly redundant already. The vehicles that qualify for these charges are disappearing from the streets; that is happening simply through the passage of time and the fact that older vehicles are taken out of the fleet. I imagine that it could very easily be the case that the same effect could be achieved by 2031 as keeping these charges in place is likely to achieve.
We have all heard cases in the past where the Government have said that there will be a charge that will be levied for a certain period and then it will fall away. When the time comes for it to fall away, it is extended or kept in place, and sometimes it is even made permanent. The Government have more regard for their own finances—that is the simple fact—than they do for the life of the motorist. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling this Motion to Regret. We are broadly supportive of most of it, but we have one central reservation about the framing.
There are seven clean air zones—CAZs—in England using the central service, as set out by the Minister. All of them will be affected by this instrument, with fees doubling from £2 to £4 per transaction from 1 September 2026 and extending for an additional four more years to 2031.
We support clean air zones. As the Minister set out, they are working and are delivering measurable and meaningful public health benefits. In Birmingham, the number of non-compliant vehicles has fallen from over 15% at launch to below 4%, and Bristol now sees close to 90% compliance. Nitrogen dioxide levels in Birmingham are down by 29% compared to 2019. That means fewer hospital admissions, fewer children growing up with impaired lung development and fewer premature deaths. Clean air is not only an environmental issue; it is a public health issue and an issue of inequality.
Our support for the policy is, however, separate from any contentedness with the quality of the instrument. The instrument has fallen short. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee once again had to step in. I recognise that that is partly because of the work of the previous Government.
The Explanatory Memorandum, as originally laid, contained no information on cost recovery and transaction data and no assessment of the impact on individual local authorities. The committee had to ask for that information and publish it, so that this House could properly scrutinise the measure. That is not how this process should work.
The lack of an impact assessment is also troubling. The Government say that there will be no impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector. While that is technically correct, it is not a complete picture. The cost falls on local authorities, which are responsible for delivering local transport strategies, and the law requires that net revenues from CAZs be reinvested in those strategies. While I recognise that CAZs were not set up to raise revenue and local authorities have known that fees would be subject to review, the committee was right to highlight the real-world consequences: where authorities fund these schemes from CAZ revenues, doubling the central service fee directly reduces the resources available for local transport investment. These changes mean less funding for buses, cycling infrastructure and sustainable transport alternatives.
The scale of that impact is also uneven. Birmingham and Bristol, with the largest volumes of chargeable transactions, are likely to face additional costs in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Mid-sized schemes, such as Bradford, Sheffield and Tyneside, will face smaller but still material increases. For Bath and Portsmouth, the impact will be more modest. I understand that four local authorities are expected to absorb the increased fee from within their own revenues. Can the Minister say which four those are and what assessment has been made of the impact on their transport investment plans? For the authorities that will instead be supported by central government, what is the expected cost?
I will address the issue of timing. The fee has remained at £2 since 2020 and is now set to double. The department describes this as a timely change. The committee observed that charges should be reviewed more regularly, and we agree with it. If updated for inflation, the fee would be closer to £2.70. Instead, we are seeing it double in a single step, not a routine adjustment.
Since the policy aim is to achieve full cost recovery over the lifetime of the service, are fees being set higher than they might have been had they been previously reviewed? Can the Minister also confirm what the review cycle will be going forward? The period during which these fees are charged is now extended to 2031, but transaction volumes are beginning to fall as these policies are working and we have greater compliance. That raises an obvious question: has the department adequately modelled cost recovery on the shrinking transaction base? If the number of operating zones declines over time, what does that mean for the long-term viability and cost structure of the central service?
I turn to my reservation about the amendment itself. The amendment expresses concern about costs being passed on to motorists. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence for that happening at all in practice. Instead, the evidence suggests that these costs will not be passed on through any higher charges for motorists. The more credible risk is that they will be absorbed within local authority budgets, reducing investment in sustainable transport.
We support the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I press the Government for greater transparency, better analysis and a clearer account of who ultimately pays. To that end, will the department commit to publishing annual data on cost recovery for the central service, so that Parliament is not in the same position again?
Finally, I thank the Minister for his letter to the committee, his engagement with me ahead of this debate, and the words and reassurances that he has already given to the House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of the draft regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the observations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I agree that, if we need to pursue this matter again, we should volunteer the information that the committee observed was not supplied in 2020 and again more recently.
The four areas with surpluses are Birmingham, Bristol, Bradford, and Bath and North East Somerset. I will write to the noble Earl with the information we have about how big those surpluses are. I put it to him and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that while the surpluses may be useful for local transport purposes, it would be foolish to guarantee that they existed simply because, as the noble Earl and the noble Lord remarked, the park of these vehicles and the income will change over time. Notwithstanding that I cannot give the figures, in the case of the larger local authorities they are not hugely material sums—but I agree that they are sums, and I will write to him detailing what they are.
The fee was set at £2 by the previous Government, without knowing the volume of vehicles that needed to pay the fee. I am sure it was not an unreasonable calculation and it would have been made by sensible people, but the review that we have done suggests that the taxpayer is making up the difference, rather than it being borne more locally and, in particular, by the authorities that make a surplus. We will review the matter again. I feel confident that in the next 12 or 18 months we will have another look. The noble Earl asked for annual data and we will look to publish something annually. I am not sure when it will start, but that is a reasonable point.
The major point is that this is an air quality measure and not a revenue measure. When local authorities are able to comply with the air quality standards for two consecutive years, they can close the clean air zone. That is what we want them to do. We do not want charging mechanisms; we want clean air for people in those towns and cities.
I think I have answered all the relevant points. I will not test your Lordships’ patience by going through again what I said 10 minutes ago. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is not a revenue-raising measure, the Minister says—unless you are the Department for Transport, which will raise the revenue to cover its costs, as that is the prime directive it is following.
It has been a useful debate. There is little to be superadded to it at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.