House of Commons
Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that the Peter Murrell case is sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of this case. Members should not speculate about sentencing.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are taking action to foster economic growth in Scotland. According to the latest figures, the UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and last week the OECD upgraded our growth forecast for this year, as did the International Monetary Fund. Scottish businesses and communities are benefiting from our new trading relationships with India and the United States and from the UK’s defence dividend. Those are all creating and supporting good-quality jobs across Scotland.
Chris Kane
UK Government funding is transforming a former Ministry of Defence site in Stirling into a major film studio, creating opportunities for skilled jobs, innovation and growth across Scotland’s screen sector. As this industry is international and relies on a skilled workforce to thrive, a joined-up approach across Government is vital. The funding unlocks the site, but what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and local partners to ensure that my constituency has the skills, infrastructure and support needed to maximise the opportunity? Will he join me in visiting the site to see its potential at first hand?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for his community in Stirling. I am pleased to hear that the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal has had a visible impact on the region, and I appreciate his invitation, particularly to visit a film studio. The successful transfer of former MOD Forthside land through the deal has already unlocked further funding for the studio. I assure him that my officials continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the Scottish Government and other Government Departments, such as DSIT and DCMS, to ensure that the UK Government’s investment continues to generate opportunities for growth.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Aberdeen is the only UK city expected to grow by less than 1% between now and 2028, not least because of the UK’s anti-oil and gas policies. The Rosebank production facility has now arrived at the field; it is ready and just waiting for the Government to permit it. Rosebank would bring £25 billion of investment into the economy and 2,000 jobs. Would the Secretary of State welcome that economic boost and those jobs for Scotland? If so, when did he last speak to the Prime Minister or the Energy Secretary about having Rosebank permitted?
Mr Alexander
I was actually in Aberdeen at the weekend, and I am fully aware of the contribution that oil and gas make to the north-east of Scotland and to the broader Scottish and UK economy. As was made clear in exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago, this is a quasi-judicial decision that rests with the Energy Secretary. I assure the hon. Lady that discussions continue not just with me, but with Cabinet colleagues in relation to these matters. Ultimately, given the terms of the legislation, the matter rests with the Energy Secretary.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Government have pledged major investment in Scotland, which I welcome, but too many Scottish high streets are still being hollowed out by Labour’s job tax hikes while illegal vape shops, mini-marts and barbers thrive. Following yesterday’s announcement for England, does the Secretary of State have any plans to hold discussions with the Scottish Government about increasing steps to tackle this issue and bring life back into our town centres?
Mr Alexander
In relation to the Pride in Place policies that we have set out, we are directly targeting support that can be provided to high streets across Scotland. The hon. Lady will be aware that within the devolution settlement, local taxation in relation to high streets rests appropriately with the Scottish Government. I wrote to the First Minister offering to meet him immediately on his appointment, but it is a matter of regret that he has not taken up that opportunity.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The Government are harnessing the worldwide reach of our diplomatic and trade networks to boost Scottish exports and attract inward investment. We have already delivered deals with India and the United States. I was recently in New Zealand and Australia on a defence-focused visit, meeting with key investors and banging the drum for our world-leading shipbuilding capability. As we speak, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), is leading a trade mission to China promoting Scottish tech innovation and expertise, along with Glasgow chamber of commerce and representatives from five Scottish cities, including Glasgow.
Torcuil Crichton
Most Scottish interests abroad this weekend will be centred on Boston, and if the Secretary of State is considering a last-minute bid for the world cup, he can fly there from Glasgow this weekend for just £740. That is just £100 more than it would cost my constituents to fly from Stornoway to Glasgow this weekend without the air discount. The rising cost of Loganair flights and the loss of the Stornoway-Inverness morning service is of great concern in the western isles, and we have already lost the Benbecula connection, with all the consequences that has. Will the Secretary of State work with Cabinet colleagues, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport—when he returns from his jaunt to America—and others in the industry to review flights across the UK?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Secretary of State must have got the gist of the “War and Peace” question.
Mr Alexander
First, I am sure that every Scottish representative, whatever their political affiliation, will want to wish Steve Clarke, Andy Robertson and the boys the very best in Boston. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let’s hope they don’t come home too soon.
My hon. Friend raises a substantive and important point about island connectivity, particularly given the woeful, abject failure of the Scottish National party-led Government in Edinburgh in relation to the ferry service. The First Minister recently visited the western isles, and the ferry subsequently broke down; in a sense, that tells us everything we need to know about the Scottish Government’s record. The Minister for Aviation should be happy to pick up this issue with my hon. Friend to discuss what more can be done.
Martin Rhodes
Given Scotland’s significant assets in a variety of sectors, what steps is the Secretary of State taking with ministerial colleagues to ensure that city regions such as Glasgow are not only attracting inward investment, but exporting their world-leading strengths in technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing to key international markets?
Mr Alexander
One of the regrettable aspects of the SNP-led Scottish Government’s record has been their failure to fully harness the capability of city regions and the economic contribution they can make. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in China along with Glasgow chamber of commerce and representatives from Glasgow and four other cities. At the moment, they are focused on a trade mission to the Shanghai international technology fair, specifically to champion the region’s world-renowned strengths in technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Scotland exports 10 to 12 times more electricity than it needs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing a review of community benefits, and we are very concerned that that review will produce a poor outcome for the people of rural Scotland. Could the Secretary of State make representations on that?
Mr Alexander
I am always happy to make representations to colleagues within Government—of course, the Energy Minister is a fellow Scot, representing a Scottish constituency. I know this has been a matter of long-standing concern for the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to write to me, I will make sure I take it up with the Energy Minister.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When it comes to representing Scotland’s interests abroad, football is right up there. My constituent, Mr Kenny Smith, has shelled out well over £10,000 on booking his tickets to go to the States. He had visa clearance—he actually had UK security clearance, which is pretty high powered—yet last Wednesday, his visa was revoked. This poor chap is in a very bad situation, so can I appeal to the Secretary of State to give Mr Smith and me any assistance that he can provide to sort this out?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern. I can assure him that on Monday morning, from my desk in the Scotland Office, I met officials from the Foreign Office when I first had word that there were concerns about the electronic system for travel authorisation and the visa requirements. On Monday afternoon, I met the Minister for North America in the Foreign Office to raise this concern. Of course, the Foreign Office was at pains to recognise that visa and entry requirements are a matter for the country concerned—in this case, the United States—but it has already made representations on cases such as that of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is happy to share the details after today’s discussion, I will immediately take this matter up with the Foreign Office.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Secretary of State first took up his job in government, his first priority should have been advancing the economic interests of Scotland across the world, but we now know what he was really up to instead. His first external meeting as Scotland Secretary and as a Minister was to meet Global Counsel, Peter Mandelson’s international lobbying fund, and he conveniently forgot to declare that meeting for a year and a half. Was that meeting a function of official advice from civil servants in his Department, or is it just the case that when Peter Mandelson says “Jump”, Ministers like him say “How high?”?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better than that. That was a meeting facilitated, attended and minuted by officials in the Department for Business and Trade. If he were actually aware, he would know that the Prime Minister has already stated that I have “acted appropriately” and no further action is needed, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s attempts.
When it comes to propriety and ethics, SNP Members might want to look a bit closer to home before they criticise us. Recalling the evidence carefully, and mindful of the direction of Mr Speaker, if they do look closer to home, they will find three coffee machines, seven games consoles, a motorhome, and some extremely expensive salt and pepper dishes. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Dave Doogan
On the case of Peter Mandelson, the Secretary of State expects—[Interruption.]—
Dave Doogan
On the case of Peter Mandelson, the Secretary of State says, “I’m in the clear because the Prime Minister says so.” The Prime Minister is also up to his neck in the Peter Mandelson scandal, so that is no clean bill of health at all. We saw just this week a stream of gushing—nauseating, actually—messages between Peter Mandelson and the Secretary of State.
How are we to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing anything in the interests of the people of Scotland when two of his own Labour MPs this week described him as the “most absent” man in the UK Cabinet? What does it say about him that the only person who thinks he is any use is his pal Peter Mandelson?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is full of beans—that is obviously what you get with three coffee machines. [Hon. Members: “More!”] He really has to do a whole lot better than his pathetic attempts at smears.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
John Cooper
My constituents will be alarmed to hear that, because Labour’s “devolve and forget” approach is a huge problem. When the Secretary of State is away, the nats will play. We know that the First Minister has gone abroad using taxpayers’ money to talk about the breaking up of Britain. Should the Secretary of State not be inviting the First Minister down for a meeting—without coffee?
Mr Alexander
Very good; I think the First Minister would probably bring the coffee with him, if he was willing to accept the invitation. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I wrote to the First Minister congratulating him on his recent success and inviting him to meet, but no acceptance was forthcoming. That was exactly the same approach as what followed after I was appointed Secretary of State, where I offered to meet the First Minister and he refused. Crocodile tears are often spilt in Edinburgh at the suggestion that we do not have good intergovernmental relations, but if we want better intergovernmental relations, the ball is in the SNP’s court.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Scottish Secretary agree that given the incoming Scottish Government have a whole list of issues and problems on their plate, the last thing they should be concerning themselves with is another divisive referendum?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend brings long and valuable experience in both of Scotland’s Parliaments to her understanding of these issues. In 2014, there was an agreement across all parties and across civic society in Scotland that there should be a referendum. There is simply no such consensus today. This is not the time for the SNP’s obsession with independence. It is focused on division and grievance; we are focused on delivery.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I join the Secretary State in wishing Steve Clarke and the Scotland team all the best in the upcoming world cup. I look forward to them bringing football home to Scotland on 19 July. It might be obvious to most why the SNP might want to distract people from the news at the minute, but it does not excuse it wasting more of Scottish taxpayers’ money pushing its divisive separation agenda, which the majority of Scots do not want. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will recognise the wishes of the majority of Scots and say no to another needless referendum, and does he agree that the SNP should get on with the day job?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I have ongoing discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the oil and gas sector’s future in Scotland, focusing on ensuring that our oil and gas workers have a future as part of our transition to clean energy. Indeed, the Chancellor and I met oil and gas sector leaders earlier this year.
Alison Griffiths
Many businesses in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency depend on contracts linked to the North sea energy sector. With this Labour Government driving disinvestment and deindustrialisation, skilled workers are fleeing the industry. Every Member in this House will have constituents whose employment relies on this wider supply chain. Does the Secretary of State understand the chilling effect that his Government’s policies are having on business confidence and investment in this vital industry?
Mr Alexander
It seems to have slipped the hon. Lady’s mind that the energy profits levy was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It also seems to have slipped her mind that fully a third of the jobs in the North sea were lost during the Conservative Government’s time in office. They failed time and time again to come up with any credible plan. The status quo of that lost decade was 70,000 fewer jobs in the North sea.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Jobs were lost at Grangemouth following Jim Ratcliffe’s decision to close the refinery. The then Tory Ministers, half of whom are now members of Reform, treated it as a commercial decision, and did and delivered nothing. In contrast, the UK Labour Government invested £120 million in December to save Grangemouth’s ethylene plant, but given the closure of the refinery, we must move far more quickly. What efforts is the Secretary of State making to deliver a new industry in Grangemouth with the £200 million allocated to the site by the Labour Government?
Mr Alexander
I assure my hon. Friend that, together with officials, I am actively engaged in efforts to secure the future of the Grangemouth industrial cluster, and I was central to the UK Government’s commitment of £120 million last December to secure the future of the wider site. In December last year, funding of up to £3 million was announced for the Scottish biotech company MiAlgae, which is expected to create up to 310 jobs over the next five years. However, the work continues.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The list grows longer every week: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca, Xodus and EnerMech have all announced redundancies in Scotland’s oil and gas industry. For some unfathomable reason, this Labour Government seem to think that everything is fine, but is it not the truth that they are carrying out the wilful destruction of this country’s domestic oil and gas industry, sacrificing thousands of jobs and making the country poorer and less secure?
Mr Alexander
History did not begin in July 2024. The hon. Gentleman can run, but he cannot hide from his record: 70,000 jobs lost in the North sea under the Conservatives, the energy profits levy introduced by the Conservatives, and zero plans for the North sea under the Conservatives.
Andrew Bowie
It is clear that Labour Members just do not get it—or worse, they just do not care. A week tomorrow, there will be a referendum on our oil and gas industry in Aberdeen, and the choice could not be clearer. Only one party is standing up for the granite city, for Scotland’s energy industry and for Britain’s energy security, and that is the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Secretary of State must agree that in Aberdeen next week the choice will be clear: vote to get Britain drilling with the Conservatives, or vote for decline and job losses with Labour or the SNP.
Mr Alexander
That was rather more like a party election broadcast than a question. As always, I would recommend the good voters of Aberdeen to vote Scottish Labour.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
This Government are and remain committed to the successful delivery of the borderlands inclusive growth deal. In March, the UK and Scottish Governments approved a deal reset, which confirmed a more deliverable and affordable financial profile. The reset will boost the delivery of key projects such as the Chapelcross development and the mountain bike innovation centre in Innerleithen, and will help the deal to make a real difference to the south of Scotland.
Ms Minns
May I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker?
Members on both sides of the border and both sides of the Chamber believe that the deal has the potential to be transformative for our region. What steps are being taken to ensure that progress on the deal is maintained, and will the Secretary of State meet me, and my colleagues on both sides of the border, to discuss the reset?
Mr Alexander
I apologise unreservedly for the unforgivable oversight of not beginning my contributions by wishing you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The borderlands growth deal is driving growth, which is why the UK and Scottish Governments have approved a strategic reset. I assure my hon. Friend that we will endeavour to take forward the work as described.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The Government are committed to boosting Scotland’s regional economies, including that of my former constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. The Paisley and Renfrewshire economy will benefit from £39 million of city deal project funding aimed at Clyde waterfront connectivity. The project is predicted to deliver up to 1,400 jobs and attract £230 million in private sector investment.
Johanna Baxter
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
Last week we heard the very disappointing news that the principal investor in the Paisley Centre redevelopment project in my constituency has been forced to withdraw from the project after years of delays and uncertainty. I have repeatedly warned that continued delays would put this project at risk, and it is deeply frustrating that those fears have been realised without, apparently, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council having any back-up plan. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me, along with local elected representatives and members of the Scottish Government, to see what we can do to get the project moving?
Mr Alexander
I know better than most the limitations of an SNP-led Renfrewshire council, and I applaud my hon. Friend’s efforts to bring this initiative to the fore. As the UK Government Minister responsible for local growth in Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), would be pleased to meet her to discuss how we can work with the council to deliver a vibrant and strong future for the town.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government are committed to empowering local people to deliver neighbourhood regeneration across Scotland. Our Pride in Place programme is directly supporting many of our most-in-need communities to shape the future of their local area. We are investing up to £480 million in 24 Scottish neighbourhoods over 10 years, and that includes £20 million for Kilmarnock.
Lillian Jones
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
I was delighted that the Darvel Improvement Group was awarded £200,000 of Pride in Place funding, meaning that it can now progress its work to restore the Sir Alexander Fleming commemorative garden and create an educational memorial in Hastings Square. My right hon. Friend will know that 2028 marks 100 years since the discovery of penicillin, a world-changing breakthrough that has saved millions of lives across the world. For local people across my constituency, that is a source of deep pride—Scotland’s contribution to science from a man born in Darvel in Ayrshire, aka God’s country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by putting power into the hands of local people, we are helping communities to deliver—
Mr Alexander
Let me congratulate the volunteer-led Darvel Improvement Group, to which my hon. Friend refers, for securing £200,000 from the Pride in Place impact fund. She is right to recognise that the world owes an immeasurable debt to Sir Alexander Fleming, and it is entirely right that his birthplace in Darvel stands at the heart of celebration of his truly monumental scientific achievement.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Perth is still the only city in Scotland that has not received one penny from the Conservatives’ levelling-up fund or the Government’s Pride in Place programme. When I wrote to the Minister at the last allocation, she told me that we did not meet the methodologies or indices of deprivation. The Secretary of State was once a failed candidate in the city of Perth and surely noticed that we have poverty, just like every other city in Scotland. Why have we not received a penny, and when will we get our share?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: I did fight Perth for Labour, although Perth fought back pretty effectively. I am fully aware of the contribution that the fair city of Perth makes to the economy of Scotland, and I am also very aware of the methodology that we have used, which is an objective basis on which to allocate British public funds.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Producing the clean energy we need is not only right for our energy security and our climate; it is the right thing to do for jobs and investment. Last week, the CBI revealed that the UK’s green economy has created more than 1 million jobs. In Scotland, the industry generated £10.2 billion and supported more than 105,000 jobs, predominantly benefiting local small and medium-sized enterprises and communities all around Scotland.
Gregory Stafford
We are losing over 1,000 jobs a month in our oil and gas industry, and despite what the Secretary of State has just said, we are not seeing a similar uptick in green jobs. Skilled workers are losing their jobs in oil and gas, and are actually leaving the country. The Government’s actions are making the United Kingdom poorer and less secure, and we are waving goodbye to highly skilled jobs. How can the Secretary of State honestly tell this House that there is a transition going on?
Mr Alexander
Look at the work being done, and the investment being made, by Iberdrola and ScottishPower. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is real investment delivering real jobs. If he would like to comment further on this issue, perhaps he would like to apologise for the abject absence of a plan from the previous Conservative Government on the North sea, which explains the fact that they lost 70,000 jobs on their watch.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s £50 million Scottish defence growth deal is a true step change for Scotland’s industrial base. It will support jobs, skills and regional growth. The deal includes £10 million for innovation facilities, both on the Clyde and in Rosyth. Where the SNP will not back Scottish industry, young people or our national security, Scottish Labour and the UK Government will step in.
Richard Baker
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence set out at the GMB conference how this Government’s investment in defence is delivering for British workers. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will work with his Ministry of Defence colleagues to support Scottish yards, including Methil in my constituency? Last month, it delivered the Seahorse pontoon ahead of schedule and on budget, and it has a skilled workforce who are ready to take on new defence contracts, including Programme Euston.
Mr Alexander
There is no more doughty defender of, or advocate for, the Navantia yard than my hon. Friend. I was delighted to visit the yard with my hon. Friend a few weeks ago, and I congratulate the workforce on completing the Seahorse pontoon ahead of schedule. Having visited the yard, I have seen at first hand the expertise and commitment of the workforce, and of the young apprentices there. They are delivering for all of us.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I know that the thoughts of the House will be with those affected by the events in Belfast this week. I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a man following the attack on Monday night. That case is now sub judice. It is possible that other charges will be brought, including in respect of events in Belfast in the aftermath. I am granting a full waiver to allow Members to discuss wider issues raised in the context of this incident. However, I must urge Members in the strongest terms not to discuss the details of any individual case. This includes not discussing any motive, nor the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Last week, I noted the helicopter crash in Devon, and I want to put on record our sincere condolences to the families of Lieutenant Commander Chris Gayson, Lieutenant Lily-Mae Fisher and Petty Officer Owen Green. Our thoughts are with their families at this tragic time.
I also send my condolences to the family of Michael Storey. Michael worked as a driver in No. 10 for over two decades. He was a remarkable gentleman who was held in the highest regard by all who knew him, and will be deeply missed.
Mr Speaker, people are rightly sickened by the horrific attack on Monday night in north Belfast. As you have just said, the man who was arrested has been in court in Belfast this morning and charged. I thank the Police Service of Northern Ireland, other first responders and members of the public, who responded with such bravery. Our thoughts are with the victim.
But let me be clear: the acts of violence and arson that followed are totally unjustified. This morning, I spoke with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Constable, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting leaders in Belfast today. We are united in calling for calm and we are determined to restore order, support the police and all those on the frontline, and ensure that justice is done.
On a lighter note, Mr Speaker, as the world cup gets under way, I would like to wish the best of luck to both Scotland and England. I would also like to wish you a happy birthday.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Melanie Ward
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Let me associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the situation in Northern Ireland, and about the Scottish football team. [Laughter.]
The existence of Israeli settlements and settler violence against Palestinians is a major and deliberate impediment to peace. By working with Israeli human rights researchers, I have uncovered 32 British charities that are funnelling money to Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Last week, I submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about them. In the last five years, they have sent over £28 million to illegal settlements, with a likely taxpayer subsidy through gift aid of more than £5 million. Our constituents will be appalled by this. Does the Prime Minister agree that funnelling money to Israeli settlements is extremist activity, not charitable activity, and will he be clear that it is banned?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. Settlements are a flagrant breach of international law, and no UK charity should be supporting them. The Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the Charity Commission today to discuss those concerns. We announced yesterday further sanctions against those who support settler violence, and we will continue to look at strengthening those sanctions. British businesses should have no economic involvement in illegal settlements. Let me just say that the situation across Palestine remains desperate, and the UK will continue to lead efforts to prevent human suffering and get aid in, and to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I, too, wish England and Scotland the very best in the world cup. I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—many happy returns. May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister made about the helicopter crash? Our condolences go to their families, and to the family of Michael Storey.
I thank the Prime Minister for his short statement on Belfast. The scenes in Belfast are deeply, deeply disturbing. A man is in hospital after a brutal attack and now families are frightened after a night of violence. There is a live criminal case, so we must be careful about what we say, but we can be clear about this: people have a right to be angry—I am angry—and people have the right to expect their politicians to secure our borders, but no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police. We all have a duty to stand up for public safety in every way.
Last night, America carried out strikes on Iran in response to the downing of a US helicopter. This comes just days after renewed attacks on Ukraine. The world is getting more dangerous and the British public want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to protect our national security. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, will the full defence investment plan finally be published this week?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that in relation to both Iran and Ukraine, we are facing a more volatile world than at any time during our lifetimes. So far as defence is concerned, we have already taken a number of measures. We have increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6% in 2027. That is spending of £270 billion over this Parliament. We have carried out a strategic review of defence and we are committed to publishing the defence investment plan before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.
Mrs Badenoch
That sounded like a no. We have wasted two years waiting for the defence investment plan. Projects have been put on hold and Britain is getting weaker with every passing day. It has been reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Defence needs an extra £28 billion. Will that requirement be met in full?
The Prime Minister
We will set out the defence investment plan. It is a 10-year plan and it is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets in 18 years. The right hon. Lady is wrong to say that it has been delayed by two years. The defence strategic review was published a year ago and we have been working through the details to make sure that we get this right.
We are the Government who increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%. I remind the Conservatives that when they came into power, defence spending was 2.5% and they took it down to 2.3%. We have taken it up to 2.6% by 2027. The defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit. We have already signed 1,400 major defence contracts, and 94% of those are with British businesses. As the Defence Secretary said, that includes helicopters made in Yeovil, drones made in Swindon and armoured vehicles made in Telford. We have also given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in over 20 years. That is Labour making investment to safeguard our national security.
Mrs Badenoch
I welcome the pay rise for the armed forces. The Prime Minister says he has increased defence spending, but he has not. This year he is cutting it by £3.5 billion. What he is talking about are hopeful increases, and we do not know if he will make them because there is still no defence investment plan. At a time when we need leadership, we have total paralysis. It is reported that the Chancellor is only willing to find £13 billion for the DIP. At the London defence conference last year, the Prime Minister said that defence would be the “central organising principle” of his Government. How can that be the case when he is giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need?
The Prime Minister
We have already increased defence spending. We will spend £270 billion in this Parliament. What did the Conservatives do on defence spending? They took it from 2.5% and cut it to 2.3%. We will take no lectures from them. They sat at the heart of a Government that failed our armed services. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. They cut the Army from 100,000 down to 72,000. They missed Army recruitment targets every single year for 14 years, and they left morale in the armed forces at an all-time low, so we will take no lectures from them on the defence and security of our country.
Mrs Badenoch
We have heard the Prime Minister say that about 100 times. There is still no defence investment plan. He is the Prime Minister now—at least I think he is. Should I be calling Andy Burnham instead to ask these questions? He is the Prime Minister, and the reason he is dithering is because he does not know where the money is coming from. The military is waiting and the bond markets are watching. He has only three options: cutting spending, more borrowing, or higher taxes. We know that the Chancellor wants to put up tax to pay for defence. Will the Prime Minister rule out raising taxes?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks the House to simply ignore the last 14 years, saying, “We may have failed the armed forces and hollowed them out, but please just forget all that and act as if it didn’t happen.” Well, we cannot forget all that, given the damage the Conservatives did to our armed services. She says, “Forget all that,” but I remind the House that when they left office, 47 out of 49 major defence contracts were delayed or over budget. That is what we are fixing. We cannot just scrub it away and forget. I know that the Conservatives want to forget their last 14 years in power. So do the British public—that’s why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches. We have increased defence spending, and we are going to publish the defence investment plan. That will be done before the NATO summit that is coming up in just a few weeks’ time.
Mrs Badenoch
I remember when the last Government led Europe when we were fighting the war in Ukraine. When Russia invaded, we were ready. We supplied Ukraine with munitions. We increased defence spending. But I was not asking the Prime Minister about our record; I asked him if he would rule out tax rises. He did not rule out raising taxes, so tax rises are coming. He cannot borrow more, because the markets have no confidence in him. The Prime Minister is in this mess because he maxed out on spending in his first two Budgets. That is why the benefits bill is set to rise to over £200 billion by the end of the decade. He has things the wrong way round: he has a benefits plan until 2031, but no defence investment plan. Why not just cut welfare?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about leading the way on Ukraine. I did, and do, pay tribute to what the last Government did on Ukraine, and we stood with them. We continue to lead the way. It is the United Kingdom and France that are leading the coalition of the willing that have got the military plans together for security guarantees in Ukraine. Equally, on Iran, it is the UK and French Governments that have put together the military plans for the coalition for reassurance as soon as the strait of Hormuz is open. That is what we are doing to lead. We are not going to take lectures on defence from the Opposition after what they did to the armed forces, and neither are we going to take lectures on the economy, which they crashed and we have had to pick up.
Mrs Badenoch
At a time of increased global instability and tension, with war in Europe and the middle east, the Prime Minister is paralysed, giving the armed forces less than half of the minimum that they need. Tony Blair says to cut welfare for defence. Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General—and also one of them—says to cut welfare for defence. We all know why he will not cut welfare. It is because he is too weak—too weak to make a decision, too weak to face down his Back Benchers and cut benefits, and too weak to stand up for our national security. As the sun sets on his premiership, he is scrabbling around for a legacy, but is it not the case that his real legacy will be a bloated welfare state and weaker armed forces?
The Prime Minister
When the Conservatives were in office, they did not reform welfare spending or invest in our armed services. The right hon. Lady sets out that choice, but, on their watch, defence spending went down and welfare spending went up—£88 billion overall, with £33 billion alone under the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). The Conservatives neither reformed welfare nor spent on our armed forces.
Every week, the right hon. Lady reminds us why the British public sent them packing. She ignores the fact that we are turning the country around: growth is up, but she does not want to talk about that; interest rates are down, but she does not want to talk about that either; immigration is down, after she cheerleaded for it to go up, and NHS waiting lists have come down at the fastest rate in 17 years. I am going to keep fighting for the people who elected a Labour Government and sent us here two years ago—people who want to live in a safer world, parents who want a better future for their children and young people growing up in poverty who deserve a better future. [Interruption.] We are investing in this great nation and standing up against those who divide us for a stronger, fairer Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. There will be a taxi, and it might be for somebody who did not request it.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the Health Secretary has said, the existing contract will be reviewed as it always is ahead of the break clause. Data security is always a priority; there will be strong cyber-security protections for the single patient record and we will protect that data, as we do with all health data. We are focused on modernising the NHS so that patients do not have to repeat themselves and can get the care they need more quickly. Our investment has cut NHS waiting lists, delivered millions of extra appointments and improved A&E and ambulance response times, and I am proud of what we are doing.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the families of those killed in last week’s helicopter crash. I associate myself with his remarks about the horrific knife attack in Belfast; our thoughts are with the victim and his family. I join the Prime Minister in condemning the disorder last night.
In Carer’s Week, I celebrate the millions of family carers who make huge sacrifices to look after their loved ones. I also look forward to an England versus Scotland world cup final, and wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy birthday.
As the chaos over the defence investment plan goes on, I am sure that Members across the House were shocked to read yesterday’s reports that the Government are considering slashing the hospital programme to fund the shortfall. Surely in 21st-century Britain people can expect both a decent local hospital and armed forces that keep them safe, so will the Prime Minister rule out any cuts to the NHS budget to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the amazing work of our carers.
I will take the measures necessary to defend our country—the first duty of any Prime Minister. The Government will also take the measures to invest in our public services, as we have done already. Forgive me, but I was running a public service when the Government that the right hon. Gentleman’s party was part of were stripping them bare under austerity. We are really not going to take lectures on austerity from him.
Ed Davey
I was hoping we were going to hear more about defence investment. I urge the Prime Minister to look at our plans for defence bonds to get £20 billion into defence.
I will turn to the horrific scenes in Belfast. We have seen the same pattern too many times: an appalling crime is committed, making us all feel immense pain and anger, and then extremists exploit that grief and anger to spread hatred and violence, aided and abetted by social media barons like Elon Musk and their divisive algorithms. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is not who we are as a country, and that it is not free speech if it is controlled by tech billionaires and their algorithms? Will he therefore crack down properly on platforms like X that are fuelling violence and hatred?
The Prime Minister
We will crack down on anyone who is fuelling this division. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we are heading into a very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the chief constable, First Minister and Deputy First Minister this morning, and they were united in saying that we should all be calling for calm. The police are on the frontline, and it is our duty as politicians to call for calm. Nobody who is a politician should be whipping up division and hatred.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the important role that flexible working spaces play in regenerating our high streets. Where the law requires a property to be treated as a single unit, the business rates are paid by the operator, not the individual business. I cannot speak for every case, but I will ensure that a Treasury Minister picks up this issue with my hon. Friend as quickly as possible.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to the tragic helicopter crash last week?
Yesterday I shared my concern that community cohesion stood on a precipice. The north Belfast attack on Monday was medieval and sadistic, and it has sadly been viewed by millions in this country. As reprehensible as it was, the outrageous violence, intimidation and community damage carried out last night in my constituency and other parts of Northern Ireland require the strongest condemnation. It is impossible to share concerns about damage to our British values and then act in a way that tarnishes the very thing we should want to protect.
The Government’s job—our collective job—is to act to protect our country and defend our borders. The Prime Minister knows that the man who has been charged entered our country illegally. He passed through two safe countries and attained asylum in record time. Will the Prime Minister meet me urgently to discuss the steps that he and his Government will take to ensure that our values are enforced, that the rule of law in this country sustains, and that he protects and closes the open, porous border between our country and the Irish Republic?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I also particularly thank him and all leaders in Northern Ireland who have urged calm, particularly before what happened last night. Standing together with that common message was very powerful. I am very happy to meet the right hon. Member and other MPs from Northern Ireland, as he requests, and I think that a slot has been identified after Prime Minister’s questions. It is important that we meet at the first opportunity.
We are all sickened by this attack, but we need to be clear that the scenes of violence and disorder have no justification. Of course there are questions that need to be answered, but destroying communities, destroying homes and driving people out of their homes is not, and will never be, the right way to respond to such an attack. I look forward to working with the right hon. Member and others to ensure a calm response and that the police are given the space that they need to deliver justice.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Mildmay hospital, which is synonymous with extraordinary care and compassion as she describes. I will ensure that she meets the relevant Health Minister to discuss the concerns I know she has in relation to it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
All those involved in the violence will face the full force of the law, and quite rightly so. The hon. Member is right to describe, as he does, the fear that this instils in some of our communities. That is a very real fear, and it is being felt today, this hour, in Northern Ireland by families who are too scared to go about their lawful work, to go to school and to go about their business. That is exactly what it does, which is why we must all condemn it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been an outstanding advocate on this issue. I congratulate the BSI on 125 years of vital work. The guidance reminds us that every part of society has a role to play in suicide prevention, and it is positive that so many businesses are putting it into practice. I am pleased to raise awareness of it and to encourage others who have not seen it yet to look closely at it and follow it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
Last week we had the terrible case of Henry Nowak, which Reform Members sought to exploit. Now we have a very difficult situation in Northern Ireland where families and communities are extremely frightened. What do they do? They try to whip up fear and division, because that is all they have got. The hon. Member talks about stopping the boats. When we passed legislation to help stop the boats, what did they do? They voted against it.
To take those measures, you need money, and the hon. Member has still not properly addressed why his companies have not just aggressively avoided tax but failed to pay the tax they legally owed. His investment company then gave huge donations to Reform. If he paid his taxes, we would have more money to deal with these issues.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Ryan’s case, the details of which, as he outlined, are very hard to hear. As the father of a 17-year-old boy, I find that particularly hard to hear. No one—no mother—should have to experience what Angie has. I know that she is here with us today, and I very much hope that I can meet her immediately after PMQs.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Let me be very clear: any blade that is used to threaten or to harm others is illegal by law—any blade. We will work with the Sikh community, knife crime campaigners and the police to learn the right lessons. That is the responsible thing to do. We all have a responsibility and a duty as politicians to respond to the case that we were discussing last week and to the events in Northern Ireland that we are discussing today with the calmness that leadership requires.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s local maternity services are seeing improvements. We now have a record number of midwives working in the NHS, and we are investing over £150 million to address critical safety risks. There is much more that we need to do so that every mother is listened to and receives outstanding care. The recommendations of the Amos inquiry will be published shortly, and we will act to deliver lasting change.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience and, notwithstanding that, congratulate him on his achievements at the London marathon. I agree with him that patients should receive high-quality, consistent care, wherever they live. Through national improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time, we are making sure that best practice is shared to drive up standards, and I am happy for Ministers to give him the details.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his great work supporting young carers for decades. We have given tech companies a deadline: introduce the device-level controls that already exist to prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images or we will change the law, with fines for companies or even criminal liability for bosses who fail to comply. When it comes to the safety of our children, standing by is not an option, and further steps will follow.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I agree that we must act to protect ecosystems that underpin our food supply and our way of life, and I am really proud that, under this Government, the UK is back playing a leading part on climate change and restoring nature.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Peter Murrell pleaded guilty to embezzling over £400,000 of Scottish National party members’ funds. Thousands of pounds were spent on luxury items ranging from a salt and pepper grinder to a new Jaguar and a luxury motorhome. When party figures raised concerns, and even resigned, they were silenced and ostracised by those at the very top of the SNP. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that a full investigation into this national scandal needs to be held as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
These are clearly serious legitimate questions that deserve answers and scrutiny—answers and scrutiny that they are not getting. I do think the Scottish Parliament should look at them closely, and I hope that it will listen to the concerns of this House.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I am very glad that we are cutting VAT over the summer with our summer savings programme, which I hope the hon. Lady will support. I note that we have not heard much from the Green party leader after he admitted he had not paid his council tax. Perhaps he has traded his houseboat for a submarine.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, integrated care boards have a statutory obligation to fully fund all essential medicines and pharmacy provision for the delivery of specialist end-of-life and palliative care at our wonderful hospices, such as St Catherine’s and Derian House, serving our respective constituencies of South Ribble and Chorley. However, this is not happening, with ICBs claiming that the costs are covered by the hospices’ core grant. Will the Prime Minister support my private Member’s Bill—St Catherine’s law—which seeks to place an explicit obligation on every ICB to fund all essential medicine and pharmacy provision for all our hospices, separately from any core grant they receive from the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. As he knows, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning palliative care and end-of-life services, including hospices, to meet the needs of their area, and that includes decisions on how services are funded, including medicines and pharmacy provision. I am happy to talk to him further about it.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case—it is obviously awful. If he shares further details with my office, I will ensure that the Water Minister picks it up and acts as quickly as possible.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister warned that NATO needs to be ready for an attack from Russia by 2030. Indeed, we have an increasingly belligerent, expansionist and imperialist Russian leadership to our east and a Donald Trump US leadership to our west, for whom Ukraine and European security are not a priority, so we need to meet the moment. To his credit, the Prime Minister has increased defence spending since taking power, but the House of Commons Defence Committee is adamant that we need to spend 3% of GDP on defence. When the Prime Minister signs off on decisions in the defence investment plan, which I hope—touch wood—will be published imminently, will he agree to that 3% GDP spend on defence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns that we have. We have increased defence spending, and the defence investment plan is going to be set out very soon and before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Lindsay Foreman and her husband Craig have not eaten in 32 and 23 days respectively. They are being held hostage by the terrorist Government of Iran, but this Government’s weak words have abandoned them, so will the Prime Minister stop raising their case and start fighting for them? He can do that by declaring today in this House that they are being arbitrarily detained—something he has refused to do—and by referring their case to the International Court of Justice, so we get them home.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important case and give her and the House the assurance that this is raised regularly by us. The Foreign Secretary has raised it very recently. We raise it every time we can; we do everything we can in relation to this case. We are doing everything that we can, as she would expect and as the Conservatives would have done in office, but she is right to raise the case.
Belfast: Violent Disorder
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the violent disorder that took place last night in Belfast.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this question, which I am answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who this morning met the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to receive an update on the situation.
Let me start by saying that my thoughts, as I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, remain with the victim of the horrifying knife attack in north Belfast earlier this week and with his family. The House will be aware that a man has been charged in relation to that incident, and I can confirm that he is a 30-year-old Sudanese national who received refugee status in 2023 and was granted five years’ leave to remain. We must now allow justice to take its course.
The attack on Monday evening has understandably caused anger and profound concern. However, there is a line between concern and disorder, and we must never allow it to be crossed. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the disgraceful scenes of violence and disorder that occurred in Northern Ireland last night. Houses and vehicles were set on fire, placing lives at risk, terrifying law-abiding citizens and forcing residents to flee their homes. Reports that ethnic minorities were targeted are sickening.
I wish to pay tribute to the police and the other emergency services for their work last night. Faced with an extraordinarily challenging situation, they responded with great courage and they are owed our thanks.
Our message to those responsible for last night’s disorder is altogether different. To them we say this: you will be caught and you will face the consequences of your actions. As of this morning there had been three arrests, but more will surely follow. To those considering joining further disorder, my message is clear: do not do it—you will be held accountable for your actions, and you will feel the full force of the law.
As hon. Members are aware, policing is a devolved matter, but the Home Office is of course monitoring the situation closely, and we are working with operational partners to understand and act on any implications for public order across the United Kingdom.
Finally, I recognise that tensions are running high. At times like this, there is an even greater onus on us all, as the custodians of our democracy, to respond with unity, to choose our words and actions with care, and to uphold the first duty of the state, which is to maintain order on the streets and to keep the public safe, because the shameful scenes that we saw last night are not who we are, and they never will be.
Claire Hanna
It has been a shocking two days in Northern Ireland. The horrific knife attack in north Belfast has left a man fighting for his life, and an entire community distressed by what they have seen. Justice must of course take its course and deliver for that victim, whose family have asked for calm.
Last night brought further outrage. Children in my constituency, and in others, were lifted out of their beds as their homes burned. Masked men roamed the streets, going from door to door, menacing and setting fire to cars, buses and homes, terrorising people on the basis of the colour of their skin or the sound of their voice—people from Sudan, people from India, people from Ukraine, and people from Belfast. Today, businesses are shuttered, medical appointments are cancelled, and schools are being closed for fear of getting young people home. So many people are frighted to walk the streets and to be in their own homes tonight. And when all the online agitators who stoke this stuff move on to their next target, we will be the ones left to pick up the pieces.
People are of course entitled to their views on immigration, and of course Government policy is not perfect, but this has not been a debate or conversation. There have not been proposals, and there has not been honesty about the trade-offs. There has been mob justice, and some of the same-old, same-old proposals for a hardened border on the island of Ireland. Political leaders have a duty to lead, not to lean into people’s worst fears and anxieties. That video of the awful crime in north Belfast was unusual in its brutality, but the cycle of deflection and disorder has not been unusual. We have seen this movie too many times before.
In Belfast we know all about blaming an entire community for the actions of others, we know all about scapegoating and tit-for-tat violence, and we know all about street justice. Violence creates division. It is affecting our economy, and undermining the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to work together to build a better future. What support will the Government provide to those who have been harmed by this awful violence? Will they ensure swift justice for all the perpetrators of the last few days, and what will they do to bring to heel the online platforms that drive this madness?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady describes with great clarity the impact of the scenes that we have seen in Northern Ireland over the past number of hours. Let me be absolutely clear: the scenes of disorder that we witnessed in parts of Northern Ireland last night are not only damaging communities, but literally putting lives at risk. Like her, I utterly condemn the attacks on property and vehicles, and the other related violence that we have seen. There is no justification at all for that type of thuggery, and no place for it in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
The hon. Lady will agree that it is now vital that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is given the time, space and full support that it needs to continue with its investigation. The rule of law must, and will, prevail; justice must, and will, be served.
Violence is never a justified response, and this disorder only causes pain and suffering for those living in the area, as the hon. Lady eloquently described. Those involved need to take a step back and consider the consequences of their actions. I strongly urge anyone who has information, no matter how small it might seem, to come forward and contact the PSNI urgently in order to assist it with its inquiries.
The hon. Lady specifically asked what support is being offered. She will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Belfast today, and I know that he will be working with colleagues there to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to deal with this very troubling situation.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Monday night’s attack was disgusting and barbaric. The victim suffered serious injuries to his neck and lost an eye. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with him. I thank the police and emergency services for responding and pay tribute to the members of the public who so bravely intervened. I commend the police for confirming the suspect’s identity swiftly, because full transparency is vital in these cases. Will the Minister confirm that the PSNI will have all the resources needed to deal with these issues?
We have all seen the footage of the appalling attack, featuring a Sudanese illegal immigrant, but let me be clear: violence of any kind in protest is never justified. Innocent people should never be targeted and nobody should ever set fire to houses or cars. Speaking as a father, no one should ever feel unsafe in their homes. I hope that the police will bring the perpetrators swiftly to justice.
I do understand, though, why people are angry. The suspect came into the UK illegally—he should never have been here in the first place. Mainstream politicians must now understand how angry the public are about mass illegal immigration. If mainstream politics does not stop this, the public will turn elsewhere.
Since the election, 73,000 people have entered the country illegally via small boat, mostly young men, and many have committed serious crimes. I recently met the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, a young woman brutally murdered by a Sudanese small-boat migrant. There have been multiple rapes and sexual assaults, with victims as young as just 13. Over time, I have come to realise that there is ultimately only one way to end illegal immigration: by leaving the European convention on human rights so that we can deport all illegal migrants upon arrival. Illegal migration will then stop, and these appalling crimes with it.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points that he has raised and, in particular, for the clarity with which he made the point about violence never being justified. He is absolutely right, and I hope that we can speak with a strong sense of unity about that. He specifically asked about ensuring that the PSNI has the resources it needs to do the difficult work being asked of it at this moment. I know that he understands that policing is devolved, but as I have said, the Secretary of State is in Northern Ireland this morning to work out what more we can do to provide support and to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke about the anger that people feel, and that is absolutely understood. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the footage that is circulating online. While clearly I have to be incredibly careful not to get in the way of a live investigation, it is understandable why people will feel extremely angry at what they have seen, but it is important that that anger does not tip over into criminality and the kind of thuggish behaviour that we have seen.
The shadow Home Secretary rightly raised concerns about the importance of making sure that this Government, as with any Government, have the right framework in place to deport those foreign national offenders who come here and engage in criminality. I think he is aware of the figures: there have been 67,000 deportations and removals under this Government, which marks a significant increase. I hope that he and the House recognise the seriousness and the urgency with which we take these matters. They need to be dealt with calmly and effectively, but this Government will do everything in our power—and if further powers are required, we will ensure that we have them—to deport and remove those people who present a threat to the public.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing the urgent question. I pay tribute to the Chief Constable, the PSNI and the emergency services for their work and their bravery, which continues to be unstinted. Does the Minister agree that the events we witnessed last night demonstrate the importance of political leaders speaking with one voice in condemning violence, rejecting extremism and supporting those working to build a shared and prosperous future for all communities and the people in Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in Northern Ireland, is absolutely right to highlight the bravery of the police. I have spent a lot of time in Northern Ireland over the years and have something of a sense of the importance of the work that they do and the risk that they carry. Looking at the scenes that unfolded last night, it is impossible not to conclude that the police did an incredibly good job under very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to them, their service and their families, who would have been at home, sick to death with worry at the kind of risk and threat that their loved ones were having to deal with.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of responsibility. As political leaders, and as Members of this House and further afield, we should all understand that words have consequences. While I understand the temptation for some to score cheap political points, at moments like this the public expect all of us to rise above that and think about how we can stand together to address the problems that we undoubtedly face.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My thoughts and those of the whole House are with Stephen Ogilvie, who suffered truly horrific injuries on Monday night, and with the residents of Belfast who were forced to flee by rioters who do not speak for any legitimate community grievance. The knife attack was repugnant, but so too were the scenes that followed. This is the second consecutive summer of racially motivated disorder in Northern Ireland that the PSNI has faced while understaffed and underfunded. The Minister rightly says that the PSNI should be given time and space, but will he confirm what additional financial support the Government will provide for the PSNI, because it needs it?
Although the alleged attacker had leave to remain, concerns about irregular migration across the Northern Ireland border are being exploited by right-wing extremists to foment hatred and division. Given the importance of accurate information, will the Minister confirm whether the Government will begin collecting data on such crossings, as officials were unable to provide it when I recently raised the issue as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sensible way in which he has brought his points forward. He is right to raise the resourcing of the PSNI. The Government recognise the financial pressures that the PSNI faces. As he will understand, policing is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but in recognition of the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Government are providing the PSNI with £37.8 million in additional security funding for each financial year until 2028-29. As I have said, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Northern Ireland with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher this morning, and I am certain that they will be having conversations about whether we can provide any further support.
The hon. Gentleman made some entirely reasonable points, which I agree with, including around transparency. It is important that there is always transparency in this case and in all cases, but I know that he will understand that I am very limited in what more I can say because of the ongoing live police investigation.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing the urgent question and the Minister for his answers. Of course, my thoughts are with the victim of the grotesque knife attack earlier this week. Northern Ireland is a wonderful place with wonderful people. The scenes on the streets of Belfast were utterly disgraceful and do not reflect the Northern Ireland that I know and love, and that many of my family live in. I am concerned about the young people who have had to bear witness to the violence and disorder, as generations of young people in Northern Ireland have had to do. What support will be given to the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the young people of Northern Ireland are protected, supported and shielded from the disgraceful impacts of the criminality seen in Belfast last night?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important wider point. Many hon. Members who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will have a long-standing affection for and knowledge of the place. I first went there in 1998 and have been a regular visitor ever since. It is an extraordinary part of the United Kingdom. It is a place that has been on something of a journey over the years. When I was in Northern Ireland recently, I was incredibly impressed with that journey and the progress that has been made in recent times. We have a shared endeavour across Government and across this House to ensure that that journey continues in a positive direction. Key to that is the point that he made about young people in Northern Ireland. We have a shared responsibility to them to ensure that they can enjoy the brightest possible future, and that will a priority for the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I join others in paying tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has once again acted without fear or favour and walked bravely into some of the most dangerous situations.
To follow on from the previous question, I was struck by just how many young people were involved in the disorder yesterday, incited not only by what they have seen on social media but by gangmasters who have groomed them into committing violence day in, day out across Northern Ireland. Will the Home Office look into a review of the treatment of young people in Northern Ireland and how so many of them have been groomed? In effect, it is modern slavery.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. I absolutely give her a commitment that, working with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will do that. Like her, I was struck by the presence of young people taking part in the criminality in Northern Ireland. We have seen it before, in the bad old days of the troubles, and we must never go back to that. We are looking at specific points around the extent to which any of the criminality and disorder has been directed by paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, but I am not yet in a position to say more about that.
The right hon. Lady may be aware that the UK Government provide 50% of the funding for a programme specifically designed to tackle paramilitary activity and organised crime, and £8 million of investment currently goes into that. I absolutely accept and agree with her key point: we have to make sure that young people in Northern Ireland are diverted from paths of criminality. I will take up that matter with colleagues in the Home Office and with the Secretary of State.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her urgent question. People in this House and beyond, including from Moscow, are whipping up hate and disorder in our country, and what happened last night in Northern Ireland was a sickening example of that. Children nearly died.
All of us in this House agree that we must secure our borders. Does the Minister agree with my proposal that the sight of people arriving here by boat or by crossing from Ireland could be ended by processing asylum claims at the nearest point of safety? That would be thousands of miles away, thus bringing an end to the people-smuggling trade.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right in her first point, in the sense that, very concerningly, there will always be malign actors seeking to whip up community tensions through the use of misinformation and disinformation. We are acutely alive to that and will work with partners and law enforcement to make sure we are on top of all that.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, I am joined on the Front Bench by a ministerial colleague from the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), who I know will have listened carefully to what she said. I am sure she understands the determination that exists in the Department and right across Government to tackle the small boat crossings, and we are working at pace to address that issue.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right that those who engaged in the violence last night should face the full weight of the law, because legally, morally and politically they were wrong. However, if the law is going to apply to those who protested, it should also apply to those who have broken into our country illegally, broken our immigration laws and become the source of many of the problems we face. Instead of that, they are taken by the hand—they have state resources spent on them and accommodation made available to them, and they are then given the right to stay here, even though they have come in illegally.
If this issue is to be addressed, the Government must change their attitude. Those who come into our country illegally should be told, “You will never get asylum.” The Irish Government should be spoken to as well, so that the Irish Republic does not become the conduit for illegal immigration, as the route used by the person who has been accused of this crime.
Dan Jarvis
The law should, of course, always be applied without fear or favour. While I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I hope he understands the Government’s determination to address the issues he raised. The Government have been crystal clear about our commitment to reduce to zero the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers, and there is a commitment to carry out that process in a different way through the use of larger sites. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the remarks I made earlier about the increase in the removal of foreign national offenders. This issue is a priority for the Government and for the Home Secretary, and we are working at pace to address the issues he raised.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The attack in Belfast on Monday night was horrific, and the scenes last night were terrifying. It is understandable that people are seeking answers, and that yet another horrific crime is facing public scrutiny and political debate. One of the challenges is that, right now, people are finding those answers online and in the toxic world of social media. We can either feed the tension that is creating, or we can dispel it by standing together against those who wish to target entire communities, and by being committed to replacing the fictions with fact.
I know the Home Secretary and the Minister have been looking at this issue, but what more can we do to help people to have access to trusted sources of information when it comes to difficult issues like this, so that we can challenge people who spread hatred? How can we lead from this place and deliver to the affected communities the information they need to be able to heal themselves and deal with the trauma of what they have seen?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There will be agreement and recognition that activity online can provide extraordinary opportunities and benefits, but clearly it can also provide a toxic environment that drives the kind of criminality we have seen in recent times.
I hope my hon. Friend will understand that we are working at pace across Government through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and right across law enforcement, as well as with operational partners, to make sure that activity online is monitored in a way that will best enable us to reduce and eliminate the kind of activity she referred to. She will understand that that is not an easy thing to do. We are constantly looking for the social media companies and the tech companies to exercise greater responsibility, but I assure her of the importance we attach to these matters. I have had meetings recently with ministerial colleagues to look at what more we can do, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into that carefully.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern that, irrespective of the personal motivation of the perpetrator, the circumstances by which he came into this country send a signal to those ideological movements abroad that wish us harm that there is a very easy back door by which they can infiltrate this country? If an operation of that sort is mounted in the future, what sort of violent response will there be to a spectacular terrorist attack that could and should have been prevented by secure borders?
Dan Jarvis
As always, the right hon. Gentleman raises a very thoughtful series of questions. I know he will understand that I am not going to get into the detail of the potential motivations of the alleged offender in the particular circumstances, but his general challenge is the right one. It is the job of this Government, and of any Government, to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for our adversaries and for those who would do us harm.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, from his previous service on the Intelligence and Security Committee, a lot about the nature and range of threats that we face as a country. I hope he also knows that this Government, like the last Government, do everything they possibly can to make sure that where there are particular points of vulnerability, we are bearing down on them, and that we have in place the right capabilities and resources to keep the public safe. There is no more important duty of any Government than being able to do that, and that is what I as the Security Minister and my colleagues across Government spend each hour of every day making sure that we do.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The crime committed was horrific, and the violence in response has been appalling. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned at seeing what look like racially motivated attacks on families, and people in my community are feeling more scared. I seek reassurances from the Minister that we will continue to stand together to reject extremism and violence and to support those who work together to maintain a safe, tolerant and united community, both in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely can provide those assurances, and my hon. Friend is right to make her points in the way that she does. It is at moments like this that we are collectively tested. The test is whether we are prepared to stand together against the kind of horrific violence we have seen—in both the initial attack and the response to it—and reject extremism. That is not about seeking in any way to minimise the horror of the scenes we have seen, but the job of the Government is to provide a grown-up, balanced response that seeks to bring communities together, not drive them apart. That will always be the response of this Government.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
The Minister said to criminals—who are criminals, Minister, not thugs—“Do not do it.” With respect, that will not cut it. It suggests that the Government are simply a passive, pearl-clutching observer rather than an active participant. I accept that operational matters are for the PSNI, not the Minister, but will he say what the Government are doing to try to fix the fundamentals that underpin the dreadful situation in Belfast?
Dan Jarvis
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but his characterisation of the words I used in my opening remarks is unfair, not least because I was seeking to provide a degree of clarity to those in Northern Ireland who might find themselves swept along by some of the violence we have seen in recent times. It is entirely reasonable that there is clarity about the message that I, as a Government Minister, send to those people, which is that they should not do it, and that if they decide they want to do it, they have to be prepared to face the full consequences of their criminality. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.
The right hon. Gentleman’s second point was a wider, systemic one. He will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an extraordinarily seasoned political operator who dedicates his service in this House to serving the people of Northern Ireland as the Secretary of State, and Members right across the House will understand how seriously he takes these matters. But the right hon. Gentleman is also right to infer that this is a shared endeavour across Government, which is why we will look carefully at what has happened in Northern Ireland and ensure that our collective response is proportionate.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her words in this place. My constituents will have been horrified by last night’s scenes in Belfast, just as they were horrified by the attacks on police in Southampton. Both followed horrifying individual incidents that were subsequently exploited for extremist political ends, including online, as the hon. Lady said. The only difference between shouting something through a megaphone and posting it on social media is that the latter might reach millions, so what consequences will be faced by those who meet the threshold for encouraging acts of criminality, including online?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the disturbances and disorder we saw in Southampton recently. The scenes in Southampton and Belfast—of course, we have also seen them in other parts of the United Kingdom—are utterly abhorrent, and it is ridiculous for the people who participate in that kind of criminality to sometimes describe themselves as patriots. They are not patriots. They do not believe in our country; they want to undermine our country. The real patriots are the people in the police force who are dealing with the disorder and criminality. On my hon. Friend’s second point, I give him an absolute assurance that those who decide that they want to engage in violent criminal disorder will face the full weight of the law.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker, to the Minister for his condemnation, and to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing another opportunity to raise these important issues. The condemnation has been strong, and the condemnation from the Minister has been appropriate. He is also right to highlight that you cannot protect British values while tarnishing them and trampling on them, destroying the rule of law, and intimidating members of our community—putting them out of their homes and destroying their lives. That is not British, and that is not what we need in our country.
As Security Minister, he has a number of responsibilities, and I urge him to look at the swift processes for asylum applications that were deployed three years ago. I understand that the individual in question regarding what happened on Monday was most likely not even interviewed as part of the asylum process, given the constrained timescales. I also understand that individuals just give a name and a date of birth, and that there is no database to confirm whether that name and date of birth are true. Without making any comment on the individual in question, that is a huge loophole in the security of our nation. There is a need to engage with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and ensure we have uniformity, including in the protection of our borders, and I ask the Minister to commit to doing so.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman made an excellent point at the beginning of his remarks about the activities we have seen not being British. I completely agree with his analysis of the situation, and I hope he acknowledges my very long-standing interest in, and affection for, his part of the United Kingdom. Lots of right hon. and hon. Members feel a huge sense of determination to support him and his colleagues in the important work they are doing.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points, and he will understand that I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, who was also listening very carefully. Of course, when a situation such as the one we have seen in recent days occurs, the Department will want to look very carefully at the circumstances of that case. In general terms, some of the metrics relating to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points are heading in the right direction, not least initial decisions on asylum being up by 71%. The Government are determined to make sure we are processing claims much more quickly and effectively than was the case previously. However, we will give further consideration to his points and should he wish to discuss them, I would be very happy to do so.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I echo the statement from the Minister and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who spoke so well and with such clarity. This was a horrific attack, and I join others in extending my sympathies to the victim. I also commend the bravery of Maitiu Mág Tighearnán and those who ran towards danger to disarm the attacker, and the PSNI and emergency services for their swift response. However, it was disappointing—but not surprising—to see the usual suspects using this as an opportunity to divide, point-score and help whip up violence and disorder online, which then played out on the streets of Belfast. Will the Minister join me in condemning those who have done so, and does he agree that it demonstrates the need for urgent action against the online platforms that facilitate and spread this hate?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, not least because I know that he also has a very long-standing affection for Northern Ireland, and I join him in praising the bravery of all those involved in the actions we saw a couple of nights ago. He is also right to raise significant concerns, which link to the point I made earlier about words having consequences. While the usual suspects, as he describes them, will come forward to try to derive some kind of political advantage from circumstances such as these, I genuinely believe that the majority of the public expect us to act in a sensible, consensual way—to address the problems about which people are rightly angry, but to do so in a way that brings people together rather than driving them apart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I never thought I would see a situation where masked men would go from door to door, seeking to drive families from ethnic minorities out of their homes. What happened on Monday was truly barbaric, but nothing in the world could ever justify that type of behaviour. I and others in this House have been warning about the rise of the far right and those pernicious people who would influence this type of behaviour on our streets. Will the Minister now acknowledge that we have a new, emerging problem with elements of the far right, and will he commit to ensuring that we tackle it effectively?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the hon. Member that the scenes he describes were utterly abhorrent and not something that any right-minded person would ever want to see, whether in Belfast, the United Kingdom or anywhere else. I hope that there is shared agreement about that. On his second point, I acknowledge as the Security Minister that to keep our country safe we have to deal with a range of different threats that sit across the spectrum. That includes extreme right-wing activity, as well as a range of other specific threats. In truth, my approach is always to be ideologically agnostic, in the sense that it does not make a difference to me what the particular motivation or ideology is of those who would do us harm. I will make sure that we have the defences to stand against those threats, regardless of where they come from.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
First, I take the opportunity to condemn the appalling assault on the gentleman on Monday night and to praise the members of the public, the PSNI and emergency services who stepped in to try to help that individual. I also put on the record that I condemn the violence that took place last night. There is no place for violence in our society—no matter the issue, it is just wrong.
However, I have some concerns. We have raised issues about resources for the PSNI. It is not that the PSNI might need resources; it urgently needs help and support. We are more than a thousand police officers down in Northern Ireland, and I urge the Minister to send support as quickly as possible.
As the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) mentioned, we also have the problem of an open border, which is a back door for illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. Can the Minister provide us with figures for how many people are using that back door? What plans do the Government have to close it? Finally, many decent, law-abiding people have genuine concerns about illegal immigration, and they feel that this Government and politicians are letting them down. What can the Minister and the Government do to try to assure those people that their genuine concerns are being taken seriously and will be resolved?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his condemnation of the violence and the words he said in praise of those who acted with great courage. I understand his points about PSNI resources. I have discussed those matters twice previously with the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be having further conversations with the Chief Constable today and on an ongoing basis. I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member has raised, and the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government will want to reflect on them further in the light of recent events.
The hon. Member also made an important point about the common travel area. As he will know, it is without border controls, and that has been the case for many years. Currently, that data cannot be collected. However, we have immigration enforcement teams who conduct intelligence-led raids, and we have a new data-sharing agreement among the UK Government, local authorities and the PSNI to protect the CTA from abuse. We will look carefully at the points he has raised, and there will be further conversations with ministerial colleagues about them.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Rioting is utterly wrong, and the scenes we saw in Belfast yesterday deserve our total condemnation, but law-abiding people across the country are rightly furious about the Government’s failure to stop dangerous and violent men entering our country illegally. One reason that they enter is the pull factor of our asylum and welfare system, and another is the open border with the Republic. I stood on that border last week. Nobody wants to see physical infrastructure erected there, but what conversations is the Minister having with the Irish Government to get them to do more to stop illegal migrants travelling north into the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the condemnation of the violent behaviour that we saw. It is right that we all do that and do not allow any ambiguity in the words we use in that regard. The hon. Member will understand that I do not share the particular critique that he has offered of the Government in recent times, not least because the number of foreign national offenders who have been deported is up by 36%. That is more than 10,000 people who have been deported since this Government came to office. He raises specific concerns about the common travel area. We work closely with the Irish Government to protect the integrity and security of the common travel area, while at the same time preserving the rights of British and Irish citizens. Where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will have to look at that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
In January, I wrote to the Home Secretary because a whistleblower suggested that Border Force lacked sufficient personnel to cover night sailings from Belfast and Larne to Cairnryan, the main port in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway. We have heard today that much more focus is also needed on the clearly unlocked back door to the United Kingdom between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. What can the Government do to address that and in turn prevent the North channel between Scotland and Northern Ireland becoming a conduit for illegals and for other contraband?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he makes an important point. I met officials this morning specifically to discuss the points that he raises. We will use all the tools at our disposal, including intelligence-led operations, to address those points. We look closely at these things, and where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will do so.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this urgent question, and I thank the Security Minister for his characteristically serious and thoughtful responses. It strikes me that there are three lines of investigation: first, into the abhorrent act on Monday night, and we have a suspect; secondly, into the disorder that we saw last night, and I heard the Minister say that three people have been arrested as suspects; and thirdly, into those who seek to incite violence. Can the Minister confirm that there is that third strand of active investigation—that we are seeking to find the people who incited the violence last week and last night, and who continue to do so?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree with his characterisation. He is right to reference the attack and the subsequent disorder, but also to reference concerns about those who would seek to initiate violent criminality under these particular circumstances. I give him an absolute assurance that we will take these matters incredibly seriously, as I am sure will the police.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Rightly, there has been unanimous condemnation of the violence last night in Belfast, as there was of the incident that occurred in north Belfast that precipitated the protests last night. Does the Minister agree that two years ago, following the Southport attacks, similar violence to last night appeared in Northern Ireland? We all condemned that too, and I asked the Deputy First Minister to accompany me on a visit to our local hospital to reassure ethnic minority workers there that we not just condemned the violence against them, but stood shoulder to shoulder with them in opposition to it. However, we need more than just words and people standing shoulder to shoulder. We hope that there will never be a repeat of last night’s violence, but if the Government do not deal with the fundamental underlying problem of the previous night, we will have more nights like that one.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he provides me with the opportunity to make a point that I know he will agree with: Belfast is a truly great city. It is a place with incredible history and extraordinary character, and I believe it is a place of great potential and possibilities with a bright future ahead. That is why it is so tragic to see the kind of criminal disorder that all of us hoped had been consigned to the past. I understand the passion with which he speaks, but I hope he will also understand this Government’s commitment to dealing with what he describes as the fundamental underlying problems. He is right to raise them. Nobody is remotely blind to them, and we completely understand the anger. That is why we are working in the Home Office, and with colleagues right across law enforcement and Government, to ensure that we are making progress on the areas that he references.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
All that the perpetrators of last night’s dreadful violence did was terrorise the innocent, inflict harm on their own communities, and distract from the awfulness of the north Belfast attack—and, indeed, distract from the many peaceful protests that took place in my constituency and elsewhere. On all these issues, the law must take its full course against all illegality, wheresoever it comes from.
However, the deadly impact of the continuing open border with the Republic of Ireland for illegal migrants still stands. This Government preside over a situation in which it is illegal to bring a garden plant from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, yet we have an open border with the Irish Republic, which gentlemen like this Sudanese man—an illegal immigrant—can cross unhindered into the United Kingdom. Does the Minister not see the problem?
Dan Jarvis
I certainly agree with the framing of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, and with the point that he made about peaceful protest. I know he will understand that my remarks referred only to those engaging in criminal disorder. I have heard the points that he made about what he describes as an open border, and he will have heard the comments that I have made previously, including the point about the very close co-operation that takes place between the Irish police, the PSNI and other police services to ensure that there is the most joined-up and effective response. However, I accept the challenge he has issued, and I accept that this is something that the Government will need to continue to look at.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The House owes a big debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for raising this question today. Last night the scenes of racist violence on the streets of Belfast, with gangs going from door to door looking for “foreigners”, and the racist abuse being thrown at any minority ethnic person on the streets of Belfast, were utterly disgusting, as were last night’s attempts by people in Glasgow and Liverpool to emulate that and do exactly the same.
What message does the Minister have for the far-right racists who are encouraged by parties represented in this House to make it clear that they will not be allowed to assemble in the next few days and over the weekend to promote the same kind of racist language and violence against minorities within our society? None of this racist stuff builds a house, feeds a child, or educates anybody. Surely what we need to do is unite people against racism in any form in our society.
Dan Jarvis
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very powerfully. To those who would consider any kind of racist activity or any further criminality or disorder, my message is very simple: break the law, and get ready to face the full consequences of the law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers, which are helpful to those of us asking questions.
I totally condemn the violence that took place in Belfast. Yesterday I stood in this place and spoke about people’s right to protest peacefully and to have their Government take account of their fears and their views. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I can say that not one stone was thrown by the hundreds and hundreds of people who stood by the cenotaph in Newtownards last night. Women with zimmer frames, young mothers with children and families stood in companionable silence, and the PSNI has confirmed that no thuggery whatsoever took place.
Those people did what they needed to do to have their voice heard. Now it is time for the Government to do what they need to do, and listen to and act for those decent and reasonable people who are not thugs and who have valid fears. Will the Minister confirm that the views of the reasonable thousands throughout the Province who quietly asked for their voice to be heard will not be ignored as a result of the loud actions of some terrible thugs?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully, and with huge experience of these matters. I completely agree with his central point that we must not allow the violent criminality and disorder that we have seen to drown out the important but peaceful voices of those who, entirely understandably, have concerns and express anger about the situation. He was right to make that point, and I can give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker? I forgot to do that during Prime Minister’s Question Time. Let me also thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for her very balanced question.
Of course we recognise and commend the efforts of the individuals who intervened on Monday to help the victim and of those in the emergency services, who were no doubt confronted with very challenging scenes last night. My question is very simple: will the Minister be considering the use of special courts to expedite matters by giving rioters harsh sentences to act as a deterrent?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I think he will understand that his question does not sit within my area of ministerial responsibility, but I know that colleagues elsewhere in the Government will have heard it, and I will ensure that they respond to it.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The victim, Stephen Ogilvie, is a health service worker, a radiographer. Our health service across the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland, depends on many workers with many nationalities and from many communities. It was therefore abhorrent to see some of those health service workers being attacked last night by those contemplating and delivering violence.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all authorities in Northern Ireland have the full support of this Government for any action that needs to be taken not only against those who are perpetrating the violence, but against those who are acting online to spread the hatred and the violence that we are now seeing? This morning the leader of my party spoke to the father of the victim, who has made a direct appeal to those who are spreading disinformation online to stop—and that includes the disinformation that his son has died. What steps can the Government take to support the family, including the father, in their asks?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns—which I am sure will be shared throughout the House—about the attacks on health service workers, to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude for their incredible work. He is also right to raise concerns about activity taking place online. As I said in an earlier response, we take that very seriously and work on it across Government.
I think it important to reiterate that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), are in Northern Ireland today. I know that they will be talking to colleagues, I know that they will be consulting widely across this place to ensure that the support we provide is proportionate, and I know that when there is more that we need to do to help, the Government’s door will be open.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The pogroms that we witnessed last night should shock the nation. They were horrific in every sense, and are bound to have left minority communities across the country terrified. We saw widespread scenes of violent disorder, with homes ablaze, and there were reports of people’s cars being stopped and checked on the basis of their race. The depraved scenes of violence that triggered the eruptions last night were also horrific, and understandably provoked anger.
These are scenes more reminiscent of the darkest chapters of history than of modern Britain. We must be honest: something is profoundly wrong. Why is it that isolated incidents are repeatedly followed by such extreme and widespread eruptions of violence? What failures of policy and governance over the decades have brought us to this point, where anger and vulnerability have become so dangerously heightened and so easily exploited?
Dan Jarvis
I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but there were a number of them. Let me reflect on them, and then I shall be happy to discuss them with him further.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Having seen violence in my constituency last night, I want to say clearly that violence is never the answer, that it is wrong, and that those engaged in it should face the full force of the law. Despite what Sinn Féin tells us, there is always an alternative to violence. We do not want attacks on people—including the police—on homes or on businesses. We do not want families to feel unsafe. We do not want little children from different ethnic backgrounds to feel afraid or fearful even to go to school.
However, the many people who are angry and scared because of uncontrolled immigration, and because of the barbaric act just two nights ago and the footage of the incident that has been displayed, want to see politics and democracy fill the space. There is significant concern in Northern Ireland about open borders. Will the Minister release the numbers on those who have crossed into the United Kingdom via the border with the Republic of Ireland, and will he commit himself to at least starting to replicate the Republic of Ireland’s system of checking people who travel from the United Kingdom—from Northern Ireland—to the Republic of Ireland? People need to see this Government take action.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her condemnation of the violence. The Government absolutely understand the concerns and are working to address the underlying issues that underpin those concerns. It is important to make the point that, on top of increased deportations and removals, we are seeking to remove the pull factors that bring people here in the first place. Illegal work arrests are up by 60%, hotel use is down by 63% since its peak, and asylum claims are down by 12%. Much has been done, and there is much more to do, but we absolutely understand the concerns.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the House in thanking the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for this urgent question and for her remarks. I associate myself with the House’s condemnation of the abhorrent attack on Monday evening and the scenes that we witnessed yesterday.
A pastor at the scene in north Belfast, where multiple houses were on fire, said that people were being put out of houses “because they’re black”. According to media reports, even a two-month-old baby had to be evacuated to safety by the police last night, amid mob violence and rioting in Belfast. That is the reality of what this violence represents—not legitimate protest, but the terrorising of innocent families. This is where far-right rhetoric takes us: to pogroms that force the police to escort children from their homes. We know from history where this road leads: to a path of destruction and division. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to counter the spread of racism and to ensure that one individual’s actions are not used to stigmatise entire communities?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the scenes that we saw were appalling and unacceptable, and were in no way legitimate protest. I hope that I was crystal clear in my opening remarks about my message to those who may be considering, or who have been involved in, this kind of violent criminality and disorder. I was crystal clear about the fact that they should not do that, and that anybody who considers doing it needs to be prepared to face the full weight of the law. I am confident that the police are working at pace to address the scenes that we have seen in recent times. Arrests have already been made, and I have no doubt that we will see further arrests in the very near future. This kind of criminality and disorder is utterly unacceptable.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We all condemn the actions on Monday night, and we look with concern at the subsequent rioting, but my concern is about those who make it possible for such actions to happen—those who politicise and weaponise. When I was younger, in the 1970s, if somebody was going to attack me for racial reasons, which did happen, I could spot them from a mile away. Now, those who instigate racial hatred wear smart suits, speak the King’s English, and occupy every radio wave and television channel to instigate hate. We seem to be repeating the same situation—Southport, the Liverpool fans who were run over, and the Huntingdon train stabbing. People are looking at crime through a lens of racialisation, but many in this Chamber have spoken in unity today. This week, we commemorate 10 years since the death of Jo Cox, who spoke about what unites us rather than divides us. May I ask the Minister to consider setting up a cross-party taskforce to tackle this issue, which is going to affect every single member of our communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Member, who makes some very important points in a considered and constructive way. He is right to make the point that words have consequences. Where people stoke the fire and seek to incite violent criminality, they should take responsibility and be held responsible for their actions. We have had a very constructive and reasonable debate in the House today, but it is for those online to think carefully about the words that they use and the messages they deploy. All of us who serve in public life have an absolute responsibility to do the right thing, to ensure that people act within the law and to work to bring people together, not drive them apart.
Defence Investment Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We are going to come to the statement, but I have a concern. There are strong rumours that the Government are going to produce their defence investment plan on Friday. That would be an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face to Members of this House. I say to Downing Street that, under the ministerial code, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that major announcements are made here. This may be speculation, and I am sure it will be corrected, but I will be appalled if it is done on a Friday, given that Members have been waiting so long.
This affects all parties who have a great interest in the defence investment plan, including Members on the Government Benches. We all have jobs, and we all have people who serve in the armed forces. We must end the speculation and treat this House with the respect that elected Members deserve. Once again, it seems to me that we are becoming second-class citizens under this Government. I do not want that to be the case, and I hope that I am going to be proved wrong.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence investment plan.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
As the Prime Minister set out today at Prime Minister’s questions, and as the Defence Secretary outlined just last week, we will publish the defence investment plan ahead of the NATO summit in just a few weeks’ time. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the entire Defence team are determined to get the DIP right to ensure that we deliver the best equipment and technology into the hands of our frontline forces, while investing in and growing the UK economy. We are determined to make the right choices for the country to ensure that the UK is secure at home and strong abroad.
Even as we finalise the DIP, we continue to back British jobs, British businesses and British innovation. Since July 2024, the Government have signed 1,400ysv major contracts, with 94% of that spend going to UK-based firms. In just the past four weeks, we have announced a £115 million hybrid Navy package for the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the British Army; rapidly procured new weapons for our Typhoons, which have already been deployed to shoot down drones at low cost; 13 new contracts, worth up to £4 million each, with small, home-grown British businesses to foster growth and innovation, and to find the next billion-pound UK defence unicorn; and a pay award of 3.6%, so most armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since this Labour Government were formed.
Let us not forget that the Conservatives left the defence programme overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. In their first year in government, they cut defence spending by £2 billion. In their first five years in government, they cut it by £12 billion. This Labour Government are rearming and renewing our armed forces, and ending the Tory hollowing-out, by spending over £11 billion more on defence this year than was spent in the last year of the Conservative Government. Our defence investment plan, which will deliver our strategic defence review, will put that right. Backed by our commitment to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and by the most ambitious programme of defence reform in 50 years, we will deliver for Britain and for defence.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to the three Royal Navy personnel who tragically died in a helicopter crash last week? We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families from this side of the House.
After months of delay, there has been considerable speculation that the defence investment plan will finally be delivered this week. Is that the case? Specifically, and to echo what Mr Speaker just said, there has been considerable speculation that the DIP may be published on Friday. As Mr Speaker said, this House is not sitting on Friday. Let us be clear: with a war on two fronts, this is not just another Government publication, but, given the context, a vital moment for our country and for this Parliament. Does the Minister understand that it would be totally unacceptable to all Members if the defence investment plan was published on a day when the House is not sitting? Can he explicitly confirm, when he gets up, that the defence investment plan will be published when the House is sitting?
You need no reminding, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the total shambles in this Chamber last June when Labour published its strategic defence review and gave advance sight of that market sensitive document to the defence industry from 8 am that morning, while I, as shadow Defence Secretary, never got to see a copy before responding from this Dispatch Box. So will the Minister also give an absolute assurance that, whenever the DIP is published, first sight—before the document is shared with any other external stakeholders—will be reserved for Members of this House?
There is a reason the DIP has been delayed so long, which is that Labour still has not worked out how to pay for it, but former Labour Defence Secretary George Robertson and former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair both know the answer: the Government should cut welfare to fund defence. If the Minister disagrees and believes the welfare budget should not be touched to fund defence, will he at least tell us whether the defence investment plan will set out a fully funded path to 3% of GDP, and, crucially, whether the Treasury has signed off the defence investment plan yet?
Last week the Secretary of State said at Defence oral questions that
“the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.”—[Official Report, 1 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 840.]
That begs the question: which NATO summit and which Prime Minister?
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.
The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.
The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences paid to the families of the crew who died in the tragic helicopter crash last week.
The defence investment plan is still not published, and after nine months, industry waits for certainty, our allies for clarity and our armed forces for the investment they were promised. At a time of acute threat, defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild industrial capacity, train personnel, modernise equipment or restore deterrence through vague promises about working at pace. Small and medium-sized enterprises are clear that investment decisions are delayed, expansion is on hold and our contracts are being lost overseas. British firms stand ready to grow and hire, but this delay is freezing procurement, paralysing the supply chain and creating doubt about Britain’s commitment to rearmament.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has assessed the economic damage caused to British businesses by the delayed defence investment plan? Given the apparent deadlock between the Treasury and the MOD, will he seriously consider our proposal to issue £20 billion of defence bonds?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions, and for the condolences on behalf of his party. It was polite of him to promote me in his question; I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he had to say.
It is important to set out that we have not waited for the defence investment plan to deliver the new capabilities, the new contracts and the new investment. The hon. Member mentioned small businesses, and earlier this year we stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to create a single doorway for small businesses to access defence. We have supported more small businesses, and we have increased the target for direct spend by the Ministry of Defence by 50%, which is an extra £2.5 billion of direct spend going into small businesses.
We will continue to support SMEs. The 1,400 major contracts I mentioned in my response to the initial question support not only companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales—the very large defence primes—but the entire supply chain, with many of those contracts going to small businesses. We want to see the innovation, job creation, energy and dynamism of small businesses have a bigger role in defence, and that is especially true in areas such as autonomy, in which many of the companies from which we are buying capabilities are small businesses with huge growth potential. When the defence investment plan is published, the hon. Member will see that we are backing those innovative companies and SMEs.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difficult decision made to move 0.2% of GNI spent on international aid to defence spending was an important one. It showed that, in this new era of hard power, we need to increase spending on defence and to increase capabilities, which is precisely the decision taken in the past. We are very proud to be increasing defence funding. Compared with the Conservatives, who cut defence spending in their first Budget, we increased defence spending in the first Labour Budget.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is pretty extraordinary to see the partisan way in which the Minister has approached every single question. He has been completely incapable of giving this House, or indeed Mr Speaker, the assurance asked for on multiple occasions, and that only leads us to assume that he is hiding the untruth, which he wishes he did not have to say: he will not be bringing the defence investment plan to this House.
That is pretty extraordinary, and it is not just one year, but 14 years. This Government claim we had 14 years in which we made errors, and they may be right about many of them—in fact, I have criticised some of them myself—but they had 14 years to plan and have now had two years in government, and we are nowhere. We are still seeing defence capability fall. In fact, NATO puts us at No. 31 out of 32 of those that have failed to meet their capability targets, and last is Iceland, which does not even have a military.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I think everybody will know—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee—that the Defence Committee has been calling for the DIP to be delivered for quite some time. The businesses in our patches, including small and medium-sized enterprises, need urgent clarity on where they go and where they invest. That is vital.
I say kindly to those on the Opposition Benches who have been yelling from sedentary positions that they should not be proud of what they delivered in 14 years. I gently say that what the Government inherited on defence was an absolute bin fire, and the Opposition should be ashamed of the mess they left us. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely right the DIP is presented accurately and for the situation in which we find ourselves today, not three years ago when the world was a different place?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.
We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have seen for myself the skill and experience of the workers at Samlesbury and Warton in supporting our Typhoon operations and building parts for the F-35 programme. One lesson we can take from the war in Ukraine—a key learning recommended in the strategic defence review—is that we look at the growth of autonomy in particular. We can see that already in how drones have massively changed the frontline, the fighting doctrine and the force structure required to deter and fight in the 21st century. That is true on land, in the maritime domain and in the air domain. A key part of the DIP will be to provide the latest technology for our forces, and to support our industrial base to not only build more of those capabilities in Britain, but ensure we can export them to our allies, too.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I would just like to add my view that releasing the DIP when the House is not sitting is totally unacceptable, as my colleague the Chair of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker said. I think the whole House agrees with that. As well as ruling out publishing the DIP on Friday, will the Minister rule out publishing it next week? After the shambles of the SDR release, the Defence Committee was promised early access to the DIP—the DIP was specifically mentioned. The Defence Committee is unavailable next week, so judging what was said then by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to release it next week. The Defence Committee is unavailable, so can the Minister confirm that the DIP will not be coming out next week?
Luke Pollard
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is suggesting we delay the DIP further, but I understand his argument. We will publish the DIP before the NATO summit. That commitment has been made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and we will do that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.8 million Bournemouth University has received to develop cyber-defence, intelligence and autonomous system courses. They are due to start in September and will equip the next generation with the technical skills they need to contribute to the UK’s defence capabilities, and ensure that we lead on the development of new technologies. In that context, can the Minister confirm that an increase in defence spending will be spent not just on kit, but on skills, and that universities such as mine will continue to be part of our strategy to address the challenges the nation faces?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion for defence businesses in and around Bournemouth. I am really pleased that we were able to announce yesterday the universities and colleges across the country that will receive the uplift in student places, with the supplementary places grant that will enhance the skills provision. We have already enhanced the provision of skills for further education, with the announcement of five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland if the Scottish Government will support a second one, and one in Wales. We need to go further with more higher education places in defence and defence-adjacent courses. The money announced yesterday, not just for Bournemouth but for universities and colleges nationwide, will help to support the next generation of talent to work in defence—good, well-paid, decent jobs.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I just cannot understand how it is that the Government still have no idea how they are going to pay for the DIP. According to media reports this morning, the DIP is likely to be half the bare minimum the defence sector says it needs and even defence chiefs still have not seen it. I wonder if the Minister could comment on those media reports. That is against the backdrop of every corner of our armed forces currently being asked to find cuts right now. The pips are squeaking in our armed forces, and defence employers in my constituency are still in a state of limbo and uncertainty about the future. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as he knows, but even he must see that this feels like chaos.
Luke Pollard
I equally have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, which is why I will say politely that I disagree with her characterisation. I will also politely say to her, as someone who reads the media speculation on what is in the DIP and what discussions have taken place, to not always believe what is written down online.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham.
My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is certainly right that recruitment matters, and that this Government inherited a retention and recruitment crisis from the Conservatives. I am pleased to report to the House that inflow to our armed forces is now up 11.6% in the last year, outflow is down 8.9%, and morale is up three points in the last year alone. My hon. Friend make a good point about recruitment, and I would be pleased to arrange a meeting between him and the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after recruitment.
My hon. Friend is also right about disposals. We work closely with our friends in Ukraine to provide them with kit and equipment direct from British industry, supporting procurement with our allies as well. Also, when we retire UK kit, we look at whether there is a Ukrainian need for it, so I assure him that that is a process that is under way. I continue to speak to my Ukrainian counterpart about the additional support we can provide not just for the fight tonight, but for the deterrence that Ukraine will need in the future, when peace has hopefully arrived, to prevent Putin from ever invading again.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
We have had some huge wins for defence firms in Yeovil, such as Leonardo and Honeywell, but lots of other small and medium-sized enterprises doing cutting-edge defence work in Yeovil tell me that they cannot properly plan without the DIP. What reassurance can the Minister give Yeovil’s defence SMEs that the limbo will end so that they can plan investment and provide quality jobs? Will he meet with them to discuss that further?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Labour Government have been delivering for Yeovil quite considerably, with a £1 billion new medium helicopter contract for Leonardo, support for Gripen exports, supporting a number of firms in his constituency, the defence technical excellence college we funded in Yeovil, and the announcement yesterday of the additional places for Yeovil College. There will be more places for Yeovil College, more opportunities for young people to study, and a growing defence sector in Yeovil that I am happy to continue to support. I look forward to making further announcements, for not just the hon. Gentleman and Yeovil but the rest of the country, in due course.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Navy mum, I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences on the three tragic deaths of our Navy personnel. While I understand the frustration with the DIP delay, 14 years of Tory under-investment left our armed forces short of people, resources and morale. Does the Minister agree that the defence investment plan must now deliver for the long term and continue to invest in our personnel and bases, including Portsmouth Royal Navy base?
Luke Pollard
As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.
Luke Pollard
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?
Luke Pollard
I sit in his chair now, so that explains what happened with the previous Minister and the voters. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was one of the few Defence Ministers re-elected as an MP at the last election, with many others not returned to the House. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of long-term security, which is why we are setting out the investment in our kit and capabilities, effectively replacing the equipment plans that were published previously, and looking at our personnel, skills and infrastructure. One of the areas that was hollowed out and consistently underfunded as capital was taken from those budgets was our defence estate. We know the scandal of the armed forces housing that many of our constituents were asked to live in, which is something we are addressing with a £9 billion programme. We have to look at lessons to improve our personnel and experience.
We are in regular dialogue with our friends in Ukraine, learning lessons on kit and capability, how Russia fights, how we deter Russian aggression against NATO allies, and how we invest in the capabilities that Ukraine needs. Programmes such as Brakestop, as a low-cost cruise missile informed by the work of our friends in Ukraine, deliver that. The lesson I take from Ukraine and Iran is that we will need more autonomy, drones and understanding about mass as well as exquisite high-end capabilities. Expect to see more of that in the defence investment plan when it is published.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.
Luke Pollard
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate the way in which he asked the question. Scotland is an integral part of our national security apparatus. From the aviators who fly from RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland, to the submariners who serve from Faslane, as well as the extraordinary number of defence companies, large and small, across Scotland—not just in the central belt—there are huge opportunities.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to pass on to the Scottish Government the importance of signing up for the second defence technical excellence college. I am still waiting for a reply to the letter that the Scottish Secretary and I wrote to the Scottish Government. We will fund one DTEC in Scotland, and if the Scottish Government can support the initiative with a second, we can have one in both the east and the west of Scotland, supporting the hugely important defence industry there. I hope that is a point on which we can find consistent cross-party support. If we are looking for more cross-party support, I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to back the brilliant submariners who support our independent nuclear deterrent, which sails from Faslane. The independent nuclear deterrent is the foundation of our national security, and something that we will continue to support in the defence investment plan.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside airport is benefiting from a £173 million MOD contract for Draken. Looking at that contract and at the others the Minister has set out, I think it is fair to say that the Department is not waiting for the defence investment plan to get moving, although we do, of course, need to see it very soon. The elephant in the room is what we are seeing in Ukraine, where capabilities are advancing and becoming obsolete in a matter of weeks—it is happening extremely quickly. What assurance can the Minister give that the DIP, when it arrives, will be flexible enough to deal with the changing nature of warfare in the months and years to come?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate Teesside on winning additional student places in the announcement that the Defence Secretary made yesterday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the fast pace of change means that we need to look again at some of the technologies that we are investing in. I have already described the equipment plan that we inherited from the Conservatives as unsuited to many of the threats we face. We do need to learn the right lessons from Ukraine; the strategic defence review certainly set out a number of them. The fast-paced iteration of drones in particular, and the complexity of a GPS or electronic warfare-denied environment along the frontline has fundamentally changed the way that the British Army will need to fight in the future. Some of that change has already been announced by the Chief of the General Staff, and we will see further capability announcements in the defence investment plan. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we have taken on the lessons from Ukraine and other conflicts around the world seriously, because the pace of change in defence is real, and we need our procurement system and fighting doctrine to reflect that pace of change in new technologies.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?
Luke Pollard
I will take that as good lobbying for one of those contracts. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Land Rover has given many decades of faithful service to the UK armed forces, but it is no longer suitable for the needs of our military and it is right that we now replace it. I announced the beginning of that contract procurement only a few months ago. I have been to RBSL and seen the skills they have there. I am expecting this to be a well-competed contract. As the Defence Secretary has set out, we want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK-based firms. I am certain that anyone procuring any contracts for the Ministry of Defence in the future will have one eye on that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
First of all, I would like to say what a great honour it was to attend Windsor castle on Friday to see the presentation of the new colours to the Royal Marines. It was an absolutely superb event and carried out to extreme precision.
It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence is considering delaying or scrapping plans for the Type 83 destroyer, the long-term replacement for the Type 45, due in the 2030s. If that is the case, will the Minister confirm what alternative the Government will review to ensure the future of the Royal Marines’ anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the new colours awarded to the Royal Marines. My colleague the Minister for the Armed Forces was there with the King for that ceremony, which reflects the continuing relevance and importance of the Royal Marines, which will be shown clearly in the defence investment plan.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about a specific capability proposed by the previous Government that may be included in the defence investment plan. I hope he will understand that I will not be able to go into that line item description today. However, on the broader point about ensuring the air defence of our naval assets, we have seen from Ukraine that there are new capabilities that can provide elements of that. We have also seen from the UK response to the Iranian drone threat to our sovereign base areas and our friends in the Republic of Cyprus how we can create a truly layered air defence, which is an important lesson we have learned from Ukraine. We have applied that not just to our sovereign base areas, but to our naval assets and our friends in the middle east.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I offer some advice to Defence Ministers in their bare-knuckle fight with the Treasury for adequate defence funding? They really should move away from this glib spin doctor’s line about defence expenditure rising faster now than at any time since the end of the cold war. The situation we are in now is as dangerous as any that took place not at the end of the cold war, when defence expenditure was declining, but at its height, when Conservative Governments—with, I think, Opposition approval—regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. Please, Minister, do not parrot a line that goes way below what we need in the circumstances that we face today.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have spent many hours discussing defence spending. I am certainly very aware of the danger we now face—it is one of the reasons why the Government have decided to declassify a number of the threats facing the United Kingdom. When the Defence Secretary declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar over our undersea cables, for example, it was both to explain the threats that we are now facing as a nation and to send a clear signal to Putin that we see what he is doing. Deterrence takes a number of forms; there are certainly our capabilities, but the ability to call out and, in doing so, to restrict the ability of Russia to threaten the UK and our allies is also important. I understand what he says, however, and take it seriously.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People are suffering due to the cost of living crisis, and taxes are at an all-time high. The delayed investment decisions are paralysing planning for defence businesses, which are stuck in limbo. Could the Minister explain what he is doing to use innovative mechanisms such as defence bonds and the rearmament bank to support the defence sector without placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her continued interest in defence, even with her new role in the Liberal Democrats. We are continuing to place contracts with British industry—1,400 since the general election, announcing a number of those in just the past few weeks—which is seeing jobs growth and both capital investment in infrastructure and investment in people and the skills that are required. The hon. Lady refers to innovative finance. We will set out the spending in the defence investment plan. As the hon. Lady will know, we are increasing defence spending, and I welcome a debate about innovation and how we can get more value out of the pounds we spend. Under the Labour Government, fewer contracts will be sent abroad—something that was commonplace under the Conservatives. I want to see the activation of more private capital to look at how we can support not just the supply chain, but, potentially, defence capabilities. We have committed to doing that with the development of a defence finance and investment strategy, which we are working on currently.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
At a recent defence industry dinner, the Minister informed diners that the definition of “British” for the purposes of assigning support from the Government to the British defence industry would be an address in the British Isles, which of course is a complete nonsense. Will the upcoming—and much-awaited and much-anticipated—defence investment plan clarify what is meant by a “British firm” for the purposes of Government support and advantaging British defence industry?
Luke Pollard
For a moment, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speeches at defence dinners, which I was really pleased about. Unfortunately, he misheard me, or has not quite got that right. Let me be very clear: UK-based firms that hire people in Britain, pay their taxes and invest in skills in Britain are the ones that we are backing in the defence investment plan. I am not interested in brass plaques. Where we have to send contracts abroad, either to buy the technologies that we do not make in the UK or for the exquisite capabilities that we buy from single sources—he can probably think of a few examples from his time as a Defence Minister—we are also introducing an offsets regime, which will ensure that British companies benefit in that way as well. It is a model that has worked well in Australia, Norway and a number of other countries. We have announced progress on that and consulted on that, too. Not only are we investing in British-based firms, but we are ensuring that when we do buy from abroad, there is a benefit for UK industry as well.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?
Richard Tice
Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I say to the hon. Gentleman very clearly that we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit. He has written to me a number of times when he has not liked my answers from the Dispatch Box. I really do hope that Reform can take defence more seriously and not try to dodge the important connections that we now know exist between senior Reform figures and Russia because of the bribes that the Welsh leader of Reform took from Russia. It is really important that we expose that in the public domain, because no UK party should ever be in hock to Russia.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The defence investment plan is urgently needed to provide our armed forces with the resources they need to defend our nation. Does the Minister accept that when the Government show themselves capable of publishing their welfare spending until 2031 but continually delay the publication of the defence investment plan, that sends a message to our adversaries about where the Government’s priorities lie?
Luke Pollard
No, but I understand entirely the Conservatives’ partisan attack line on this one—and it is good to see the hon. Gentleman joining in. Let me be very clear: we have increased defence spending. We did so from the very first Budget that the Chancellor delivered at this Dispatch Box, and we are continuing to do that. Defence spending is £11 billion more per year today than under the last year of the Conservative Government, and we are directing more of that money at British-based firms.
We are fixing military accommodation, which is in such a state. The first 1,200 of the worst military homes have now been refurbished, and we will continue that work until nine in 10 military homes are refurbished. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years—a 14.1% cumulative pay rise under this Labour Government compared with the pay freezes that many of them endured under the Conservative Government. We are rearming and backing Britain, and when the defence investment plan is published very shortly, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Following the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), I want to welcome the Gripen contract, which benefits my constituency. Others have mentioned the fast-paced development of uncrewed weapons, but I am concerned about the domestic attacks the UK might see on our cyber, energy and food security. Can the Minister assure the House that the DIP will address that risk and fund public awareness of the threats to our home security and the role we must all play in the defence of the realm?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for championing the defence firms that she has around her constituency. They are a really important in making the case that defence is an engine for growth.
The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face as a nation are more complex than they have been for a very long time. They are not just military threats. The United Kingdom is under constant cyber-attack from our adversaries; that is one of the reasons why we have invested so much in our cyber defences and will continue to do so.
The hon. Lady also hits on the really important point that defending our nation is not just a job for the Ministry of Defence: it is part of a cross-Government effort that must include securing our food—because food security is national security—and our energy supply. That is one of the reasons why we are investing so much in our clean power mission to generate more of our energy in the United Kingdom. By investing in renewables, we can have good clean green jobs for the UK while also reducing our reliance on energy from further afield. Iran’s reckless actions in the middle east have shown to everyone in the House why investing in our energy security is so important. It is about home-grown energy, not relying on imports from abroad.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The No. 1 priority for me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 was a decent homes standard for military families, and I was delighted that the Government subsequently enacted that provision. We also welcome the £9 billion for service family and military accommodation that the Minister has referred to. Does the Minister agree that a poorly housed and unhealthy fighting force is not what this country needs and, similarly, that an unhealthy and poorly housed population is not what we need in this country? Can he confirm that the DIP will not be funded by raiding either the military housing budget or the affordable homes budget?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about military housing, which is not just for our armed forces personnel but, importantly, for their families. As someone who represents a military area in Plymouth, I know that when our forces are deployed abroad, if their families back home are living with black mould in their kids’ bedrooms, leaky roofs or broken boilers, it affects their ability to do the job we have asked them to do—on the frontline or wherever it may be. That is why in opposition we committed to making defence housing a priority.
In government, we have announced the defence housing strategy to improve, rebuild or refurbish nine in 10 military homes—along with our substantial commitment of £9 billion—and we have already made substantial progress on the 1,200 worst family homes. We are looking at what we can do not only with service family accommodation, but single living accommodation, because those who live on bases should also be reassured that we value their service and want them to live in decent accommodation, whichever service they may be in and wherever they may be deployed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
My constituency is home to the Sennybridge training area, an area of vital national importance that borders Merthyr Cynog. The military training area exists only because local farmers surrendered their farms for the national interest. However, the Minister’s Department is now raising concerns about foreign investment in the area—notably that from Bute Energy, which plans to build wind farms that could create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military operations. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to support defence investment in Wales at sites like Sennybridge? Will he agree to meet me and Merthyr Cynog community council to discuss Bute Energy’s plans for the area?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest. Every single nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the defence investment plan. Wales is already the recipient of one of the five defence growth deals that we announced, with new capabilities and new investment in skills. We look forward to speaking with the new Welsh Government in due course about how we operationalise that. The MOD’s main objection to the development of wind farms predominantly relates to the impact on air defence radars. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me some details in advance of us meeting.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As somebody who represents Devon as well as Somerset, may I share the Minister’s sentiments about the very tragic loss of lives in west Devon last week?
I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the Ankara summit is imminent, but is he not deeply concerned that the Government’s dither and delay in publishing the defence investment plan is seriously undermining our credibility with our friends in the world and sending a signal of immense weakness to our foes, and furthermore that at a time when we should be showing leadership the Government are showing lethargy?
Luke Pollard
I do not quite agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, and she need only look at the announcements that we have made on defence in only the past few months: the standing up of the coalition of the willing with our friends in France, which is a multinational effort to support Ukraine; our continued support for Ukraine by providing kit, equipment and training; our forward land forces in Estonia being equipped with the latest drone technology; and the work we are doing with the UK-led mission in the strait of Hormuz, deploying brand-new autonomous capabilities as part of a hybrid Navy to deal with Iranian mines. We can see that the UK is stepping up.
Over my two years as a defence Minister, I have seen our international friends in government—be they parties of the left or right—making the case that Britain is back on the world stage and that UK leadership matters. When it comes to the changing geopolitical system, which we can all see around the world, UK leadership in the Euro-Atlantic is especially welcome and desired from our allies, who want to work with us on capabilities and deployment. The hon. Lady and the whole House will see more of that when the defence investment plan is published shortly.
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.
Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Luke Pollard
indicated dissent.
Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Railways Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clauses 49 and 50.
New clause 1—Passengers’ Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;
(b) targets for reliability of services;
(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—
(i) seat design,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,
(iii) provision of power outlets,
(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;
(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;
(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.
New clause 2—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
New clause 3—Fund for future railway improvements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a fund for the purpose of providing improvements to the railway in the long term, including investment in new or reopened railway lines and stations.
(2) The fund under this section is to be called the Tomorrow’s Railway Fund (‘the fund’).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for monies to be allocated to the fund for each funding period.
(4) Local and regional transport authorities may apply to the Secretary of State to receive a grant of monies from the fund, for the purpose of enabling construction of new railway stations and associated infrastructure.
(5) A purpose enabling construction under subsection (4) includes a feasibility study for any station or associated infrastructure.
(6) In this section ‘funding period’ has the meaning given in Paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 2 to this Act.”
This new clause would establish a new funding mechanism for local authorities to bid to central government for funding for feasibility studies on, or construction of, new stations, railways, or other enhancements.
New clause 4—Restoring Your Railway fund: review—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing a review of the Restoring Your Railway Fund.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the effect of the fund on the reopening of railway lines and stations.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the Restoring Your Railway Fund, announced by the previous Government in February 2020.
New clause 5—Rails to Trails Programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a programme to facilitate the conversion of disused railway lines, sidings and associated land into active travel routes for—
(a) walkers,
(b) wheelers,
(c) cyclists, and
(d) horse riders.
(2) The programme must include—
(a) a national statutory framework to support community groups and local authorities to acquire and convert the land set out in subsection (1),
(b) a long-term fund to provide financial incentives and resources for local authorities and public bodies to convert the land for such use;
(c) mechanisms to ensure landowners are fairly compensated for any land that is acquired or converted.
(3) The programme under this section is to be referred to as the ‘Rails to Trails Programme’.”
This new clause would require the Government to turn disused railways into active travel paths.
New clause 6—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—
“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).
(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to—
(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,
(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,
(c) offer discounted fares for passengers who are UK armed forces veterans,
(d) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,
(e) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,
(f) introduce a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,
(g) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,
(h) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and
(i) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—
(i) multiple rail services, or
(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.
(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”
This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s and veterans’ discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.
New clause 7—Rail climate resilience and decarbonisation framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, publish a framework that seeks to meet the following objectives—
(a) reduce the carbon footprint of the rail network;
(b) identify sections of the network vulnerable to climatic risks including drought, soil moisture deficit, flooding, heat and cold.
(2) The framework must include a schedule of required infrastructure improvements to the sections of network identified under subsection (1)(b).
(3) Great British Railways must publish a report on the progress of the objectives set out in subsection (1) every two years beginning on the date on which the framework is published.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each report as set out in subsection (3).”
This new clause establishes a statutory climate resilience and decarbonisation framework and requires regular reporting on progress made against the objectives set out in the framework.
New clause 8—Great British Railways: environmental targets—
“(1) In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to take steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.
New clause 9—Great British Railways Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or,
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
New clause 10—Devolution of rail to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended according to subsection (2).
(2) In section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Before the end of the period specified in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the transfer of functions relating to rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) the management of rail infrastructure;
(b) the operation and funding of rail infrastructure;
(c) the planning, funding and management of maintenance, enhancement and renewal of rail infrastructure;
(d) the regulation of capacity, access, charging and performance arrangements of rail infrastructure; and
(e) the integration of passenger services with rail infrastructure.
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) must come into force—
(a) on a date no later than three years after the passing of this Act, or
(b) on a date agreed between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers,
whichever is the earlier.
(6) Regulations under this section must make provision about funding for the Welsh Ministers relating to the functions transferred to them under subsection (4).
(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the level of funding to be provided under subsection (6).
(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause devolves rail in Wales to the Welsh Government and makes provision about the devolution of commensurate funding.
New clause 11—Safe bicycle storage at railway stations—
“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators have a duty to provide sufficient safe bicycle storage facilities at all stations that they operate.
(2) In this section ‘safe bicycle storage’ means cycle lockers or cycle hangers.
(3) For the purposes of this section, safe bicycle storage is sufficient if each railway station has—
(a) at least one safe bicycle storage facility on or adjacent to its premises, and
(b) at least one additional safe bicycle storage facility for every 30 vehicle parking spaces at the station.”
This new clause would require every station to have safe bike storage in place for passengers.
New clause 12—Welsh rail funding report and strategy—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) an estimate of the cost of unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal need in Wales since 1 April 2000;
(b) a strategy to fulfil any need identified under paragraph (a).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include a definition of “unfulfilled rail infrastructure enhancement and renewal”.”
This new clause requires a review of funding, including as needed to make up for rail infrastructure not developed since 2000.
New clause 13—Investment in rural areas in Wales—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy (‘the strategy’) to increase levels of investment in railway infrastructure enhancement in rural areas in Wales.
(2) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the strategy.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers when preparing the strategy.
(4) The Secretary of State must receive the consent of the Welsh Ministers before publishing, revising or replacing the strategy.”
This New Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy on improving railway infrastructure enhancement investment in rural areas of Wales.
New clause 14—Passenger growth target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.
(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—
(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and
(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.
New clause 15—Travel facilities for rail staff—
“(1) Great British Railways must, following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify, provide free and discounted travel to persons who are—
(a) employed by GBR;
(b) employed by a subsidiary of GBR;
(c) employed by a company owned by GBR;
(d) employed by a company contracted to provide a service to GBR;
(e) employed by a company licensed to operate railway services on GBR infrastructure;
(f) employed by a railway services company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority;
(g) employed by a company that is subcontracted to provide rail services to a rail company owned by Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or a devolved transport authority; or
(h) any other person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the creation of an industry wide concessionary travel scheme for rail staff, and a requirement for that scheme to be consulted with the trade unions.
New clause 16—Reopening of services to underserved areas—
“(1) Great British Railways must establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services.
(2) In meeting its purpose, the department must consider—
(a) options to restore and reopen any lines closed after March 1963, and
(b) the potential to add stations onto existing lines.
(3) The department must cooperate with relevant transport authorities.
(4) In subsection (3), relevant transport authorities means—
(a) Scottish Ministers;
(b) Welsh Ministers;
(c) in England—
(i) any—
(a) mayoral strategic authority,
(b) combined authority, or
(c) combined county authority
with responsibility for rail transport or integration of services with rail transport, and
(ii) in relation to Greater London, the Mayor of London.”
This new clause would require GBR to establish a department to look at options to reopen closed lines, or add new stations to existing lines, to increase service to underserved and unserved places.
New clause 17—Duty to consult certain Members of Parliament—
“(1) Great British Railways must consult certain Members of Parliament before making a decision within subsection (2).
(2) A decision is within this subsection if—
(a) it relates to railway passenger services or railway infrastructure, and
(b) in the opinion of Great British Railways, making that decision would have a significant effect on the economy of any area or on persons living, working or travelling in that area.
(3) In this section ‘certain Members of Parliament’ means any Member of the House of Commons who represents a parliamentary constituency that includes any part of an area as described in subsection (2)(b).”
This new clause would require Great British Railways (GBR) to consult MPs whose constituencies include areas likely to be affected by decisions made by GBR relating to passenger services or railway infrastructure.
New clause 18—Railway services: safeguarding accreditation scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that all operators of passenger railway services participate in a recognised safeguarding accreditation scheme.
(2) Any scheme under subsection (1) must be recognised by—
(a) the British Transport Police, or
(b) any other authority determined as suitable by the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires all rail service operators to engage with a nationally recognised safeguarding scheme.
New clause 19—Railway workforce: dispute resolution—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about railway workforce terms and conditions and dispute resolution.
(2) Regulations under this section may designate which terms and conditions for staff working on the railways require—
(a) consultation prior to agreement, or
(b) can be imposed without consultation.
(3) Any industrial disputes about arrangements under subsection (2) must be referred to a dispute resolution process.
(4) Any findings of a dispute resolution process under subsection (3) must be accepted and actioned in full including—
(a) any enforcement action to be taken;
(b) any award of the dispute resolution by all parties.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to define which railway workforce terms and conditions can be imposed, and which must be agreed, and for any that must be agreed, to refer disputes to binding dispute resolution.
New clause 20—Duty to integrate across modes of transport—
“In exercising any of their functions under this Act, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must seek to promote the integration of railway passenger services with—
(a) bus and coach services,
(b) tram and light rail, and
(c) micromobility.”
This new clause puts a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to promote the multimodal transport integration with rail.
New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR.
(2) Any scheme under this section must—
(a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);
(b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate.
(3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.”
This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.
New clause 22—Duty to provide step-free access—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State has a duty to approve such works as are necessary to enable step-free access to all platforms at qualifying stations served by any GBR passenger service.
(2) In this section, a station is a qualifying station if—
(a) in any given year, at least one million passengers—
(i) start a rail journey,
(ii) end a rail journey, or
(iii) transfer between passenger train services
at the station; and
(b) on the day on which this Act is passed, there is not step-free access to all platforms at the station.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to approve work on ensuring stations serving more than one million passengers a year are step-free.
New clause 23—Accessibility strategy for the railway network—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an accessibility strategy for the railway network (‘the strategy’).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to describe how the railway will be made accessible for all passengers by the end of the period of ten years beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, having particular regard to disabled persons.
(3) The strategy must include—
(a) a timetable and programme of works for delivering permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms;
(b) measures for ensuring accessible rolling stock, interchange, and station facilities;
(c) an assessment of costs and funding requirements to meet the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) a plan for monitoring progress against any goals set in the strategy, including through annual reporting to Parliament; and
(e) arrangements for consultation with such disabled persons’ organisations and other persons as the Secretary of State may designate.
(4) The strategy must not consider any reasonable adjustment for disabled persons as a substitute for the provision of permanent step-free access at all stations and to all platforms.
(5) Arrangements under paragraph (3)(e) must include consultation throughout the development, implementation, and review of the strategy, including involvement in design and delivery of any activity proposed by the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a ten-year railway accessibility strategy, within one year of the passage of the Bill.
New clause 24—Regional railway services passenger organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a passenger organisation for each region in which Great British Railways operates (‘GBR regions’).
(2) Any user of railway services who is resident in, or who regularly uses services within, a region may join the regional passenger organisation established under subsection (1) for that region.
(3) The purpose of each regional passenger organisation is to represent passenger interests, including representation of passengers’ expertise to management boards of GBR regions.
(4) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of each regional passenger organisation, including that members of each organisation must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (4) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(6) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (5).
(7) No less than one-third of any regional board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise representatives of regional passenger organisations, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(8) Any representative to which subsection (7) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the organisation, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(9) Regulations under this section must create a disabled people’s committee as part of each regional passenger organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the regional passengers organisation and the GBR regions.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish regional passengers groups in each region in which GBR operates, with the purpose of representing passengers' interests and putting forward passengers' expertise.
New clause 25—National passengers group—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a national passengers group (‘the group’), comprising representatives of each regional passenger organisation under section [Regional railway services passenger organisations].
(2) The purposes of the group under subsection (1) are to—
(a) facilitate engagement with regional passenger organisations on national rail proposals,
(b) act as a body that the Secretary of State and GBR must consult on national rail proposals, and
(c) provide oversight and scrutiny to the regulatory work of the Passengers’ Council.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for the governance of the group, including that members of the group must elect a chair and officers, under arrangements made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that officers elected under subsection (3) include a proportionate representation of groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
(5) The Secretary of State must assess and publish an annual report on any steps taken under subsection (4).
(6) Any national board established to govern or oversee Great British Railways must comprise at least one-third representatives of this national passenger organisation, including a proportionate representation of disabled passengers.
(7) Any representative of the group to which subsection (6) applies—
(a) must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the group, and
(b) may vote on any decision made by that board.
(8) Regulations under this section must create a National Accessibility Panel as part of the national passengers’ organisation, with a majority of disabled people, to serve in an expert advisory and supervisory capacity to the national passengers group and the national GBR board.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a new national passengers group made up of representatives of regional passenger organisations and requires that the group is represented on a GBR national board.
New clause 26—Transfer of employees to GBR—
“(1) For the purpose of meeting GBR’s function in section 3(1)(i) of this Act, the Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment for—
(a) Network Rail,
(b) any franchise operated by DfT Operated Ltd, or
(c) any franchise operated by a rail company under a contract with the Department for Transport,
become employees of GBR.
(2) A scheme made under this section must in particular include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”
This new clause is consequential on Amendment 64 and enables for the transfer of employees to GBR from Network Rail and DfT-operated franchises.
New clause 27—Pension schemes—
“(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations relating to active members of the Railway Pension Scheme who joined the scheme after 4 November 1993.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide that any person who—
(i) is an active Member of the Railway Pension Scheme,
(ii) joined that section of the Railways Pension Scheme after 4 November 1993, and
(iii) becomes an employee of GBR through arrangements made under this Act,
remains a member of the Railway Pension Scheme under terms and benefits that are no less favourable than those terms and benefits received by the person prior to the passing of this Act;
(b) provide that persons employed by GBR are eligible to join either—
(i) the Railway Pension Scheme, or
(ii) any other scheme, provided that the terms and benefits of that scheme are equivalent to the Railway Pension Scheme.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would provide that employees of GBR, or those transferred into GBR, can continue to access the Railways Pension Scheme or a pension scheme providing equivalent benefit.
New clause 28—Season ticket discount—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) under the age of 25, and
(b) enrolled in full-time education at a recognised educational institution
to access a discounted season ticket for travel on railway passenger services provided by participants in the scheme.
(2) A discounted season ticket under this section—
(a) must cost no less than a third of the price of the full-price season ticket provided by Great British Railways, and
(b) may be limited to allow travel only between the holder of the season ticket’s residence and recognised educational institution.
(3) ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 29—Duty to co-operate—
“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—
(a) reduce transport disruption, and
(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.
(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—
(i) maintenance;
(ii) construction;
(iii) any other work;
related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.
(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.
New clause 30—Accessible rail strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.
(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—
(a) percentage of stations with step free access,
(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,
(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.
(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.
(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.
New clause 31—Service changes: consultation—
“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—
(i) its functions under Section 1;
(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;
(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;
(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;
(d) consult—
(i) local stakeholders,
(ii) passenger groups, and
(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements
about those changes.
(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it includes changes to rail—
(a) timetables;
(b) routes;
(c) service capacity.
(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.
New clause 32—Nationally significant infrastructure projects—
“(1) An application for a nationally significant infrastructure project may not be proceeded with unless the Secretary of State has published a report on the impact of the project on rail infrastructure and services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) capacity of the rail network,
(b) the potential need for new lines or services,
(c) level crossings, and
(d) the accessibility of the rail network.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament prior to a decision being made on the application.
(4) In this section, ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’ has the meaning given in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved, to ensure the rail network remains able to meet the needs of passengers.
New clause 33—Rail devolution: Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—
(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;
(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;
(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;
(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and
(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.
(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.
(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 34—Mutual and co-operative structures—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of mutual and co-operative corporate structures.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider the impact of mutual and co-operative corporate structures on employee engagement and governance.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider mutual and cooperative corporate structures with regards to employee engagement and governance.
New clause 35—Duty to consider capacity at Ely Junction—
“(1) In exercising functions under section 17 (rail freight target) and section 15 (rail strategy), the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to increase capacity at Ely Junction.
(2) The rail strategy prepared under section 15 must—
(a) identify Ely Junction as a capacity constraint of national strategic importance for freight and passenger services, and
(b) set out how the Secretary of State will work with Great British Railways and other relevant bodies to address that constraint.
(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress towards resolving capacity constraints at Ely Junction.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when setting the rail freight target and preparing the statutory rail strategy, to treat Ely Junction as a nationally significant capacity constraint and to report to Parliament on progress in addressing it.
New clause 36—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.
(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—
(a) is a member of the armed forces;
(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or
(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.
(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.
(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.
New clause 37—Train frequency duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must—
(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;
(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.
(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).
(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—
(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;
(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.
New clause 38—Accessible ticket machines—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—
(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;
(b) have the same user interface;
(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and
(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.
New clause 39—Passengers’ Council Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) The persons appointed to the board by the Secretary of State must include a minimum of two disabled persons.”
This new clause would ensure representation of disabled people on the Board of the Passengers’ Council.
New clause 40—Population change: railway services—
“(1) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State have a duty to provide railway services for an area or at a station proportionate to any increase in population of the area served by that station.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a population increase includes any change in residency of an area that is either—
(a) permanent, or
(b) seasonal.
(3) In this section ‘seasonal’ means any period, or periods, of at least seven days where in the opinion of Great British Railways it is reasonably predictable that the population of an area will increase relative to the population during any time that is not the period in question.
(4) Great British Railways and the Secretary of State must consider provision of—
(a) infrastructure,
(b) rolling stock
(c) services, and
(d) any further investment necessary
for the purpose of meeting the duty under this section.”
This new clause would put a duty on GBR and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to any permanent or seasonal increases in population in areas.
New clause 41—Contribution of rail to environmental targets: report—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and before the end of each period of twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Report on the contribution of rail and rail travel in the UK to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with—
(a) meeting the UK carbon account target for 2050, as provided for in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) limiting the global mean temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.
(2) A report under this section must include recommendations to Great British Railways for any actions to increase the contribution of rail to the goals in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the contribution of UK rail to net zero and climate change goals.
New clause 42—Assessment of passing loop at Tisbury—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the West of England line.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits to—
(a) reliability of services on, and
(b) capacity of
West of England line railway services that pass through Tisbury.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing an assessment under this section within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of constructing a new passing loop at Tisbury.
New clause 43—Provision of food and drink—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to provide food and drink on all qualifying GBR services.
(2) A GBR service is a qualifying service if it has a journey time of at least one hour from the station from which the service first departs to the station at which it terminates.
(3) In meeting the duty under this section, Great British Railways may provide food and drink through such means as it considers appropriate.”
New clause 44—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 45—Great British Railways Governance—
“(1) This section applies to a person who—
(a) works for, or
(b) has a financial interest in
a private company involved in the railway sector.
(2) A person under subsection (1) is ineligible for appointment to positions within the governance structures of Great British Railways, including—
(a) any Board of GBR,
(b) any regional Boards that oversee GBR at a regional level,
(c) Passengers’ Council, and
(d) Office of Rail and Road.”
This new clause requires that people who work for private companies involved in the railway sector or who hold a financial interest in the railway sector are ineligible for participation in the governance of GBR, including on the board of national GBR and in regional GBR boards.
New clause 46—Review of passenger safety—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive review of passenger safety.
(2) A review under this section must in particular have regard to the safety of women and disabled people.
(3) The review must consider—
(a) staffing levels at railway stations and on board trains, including for late-night services and other services which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to a higher risk to passenger safety;
(b) lighting in waiting areas;
(c) opening hours and accessibility of help points;
(d) CCTV coverage at stations and on trains;
(e) the potential merits of introducing real-time reporting applications for incidents where a passenger is harassed or otherwise is unsafe, and an associated rapid response protocol following a notification being made to an appropriate authority via such an application;
(f) public awareness of methods to report concerns about safety, including the British Transport Police text facility;
(g) the potential merits of providing a dedicated phone number that allows passengers to directly contact the next station on the line to report incidents or safety concerns;
(h) coordination of travel connections from stations at night, including between rail operators, local public transport and licensed taxi services;
(i) the potential merits of increasing, where it is practicable, patrols of trains and stations by train managers, guards or other appropriate persons for the purposes of identifying incidents, supporting accessibility, and promoting passenger safety.
(4) Where the review recommends any action to improve passenger safety, the Secretary of State and Great British Railways must make all reasonable efforts to implement that action.
(5) In this section, ‘appropriate persons’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that it may have different meanings for different purposes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review ways to improve passenger safety. It sets out the content of such a review, and requires the Secretary of State and GBR to take reasonable steps to implement the review’s recommendations.
New clause 47—Free train travel for 16 to 18-year olds in education or training—
“(1) Great British Railways must provide for a scheme enabling persons who are—
(a) aged 16, 17 or 18, and
(b) either—
(i) enrolled in full-time education or training at a recognised educational institution, or
(ii) undertaking an apprenticeship
to travel for free on railway passenger services subject to the condition in subsection (2).
(2) The condition is that the travel undertaken must be between a person’s residence and either—
(a) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(i), the recognised educational institution at which the person is enrolled, or
(b) in the case of paragraph (1)(b)(ii), any place at which the person is employed, or undertakes any training relating to that employment.
(3) In this section ‘recognised educational institution’ means any body under the Education (Recognised Bodies) (England) Order 2020.”
New clause 51—Long-term freight access agreements—
“(1) Great British Railways may enter into long-term access agreements with—
(a) Freight operating companies, and
(b) Persons developing, owning or operating rail-connected logistics facilities.
(2) An agreement under this section may be granted for a period exceeding 5 years where the ORR is satisfied that the agreement—
(a) Supports the rail freight target set under section 17, and
(b) Does not unduly restrict network capacity for other users.”
This amendment would allow GBR to enter into long-term access arrangements for freight.
New clause 52—Purpose of Great British Railways—
“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—
(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,
(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,
(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,
(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,
(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,
(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,
(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,
(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,
(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,
(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,
(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,
(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and
(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.
(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
New clause 53—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).
(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—
(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,
(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and
(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.
(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.
New clause 54—Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a Working Practices and Modernisation Framework (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must include measures to—
(a) enable all passenger routes to be planned and delivered as a seven-day service, within the pay and conditions for standard working hours;
(b) enable drivers to operate train doors without additional payments in locations where this is not yet standard practice;
(c) require Great British Railways to establish a train driving school with updated training methods, with the purposes of reducing route-knowledge training times and increasing driver availability;
(d) end practices including—
(i) short-notice holiday approvals;
(ii) dependency on overtime to compensate for sickness absence or annual leave;
(iii) the prohibition on driving more than one journey over the same rails;
(e) introduce multi-disciplinary and flexible maintenance teams in GBR;
(f) support the adaptation of drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure;
(g) prohibit unnecessary delays in introducing new rolling stock arising from route-learning requirements or working practices that exceed what is reasonably required for the safe operation of the railway, ensuring new fleets can deploy when manufactured;
(h) permit driver managers to drive trains when required;
(i) require maintenance and operational teams based in specified areas to assist teams in neighbouring areas;
(j) prevent the Secretary of State from awarding general pay rises to any area of the rail workforce where—
(i) workforce productivity has fallen, or
(ii) where actions required in the Framework have not been implemented.
(3) Great British Railways has a duty to secure compliance with the Framework.
(4) Where the duty on Great British Railways under subsection (3) applies in respect of services which are run by any person other than Great British Railways, Great British Railways must fulfil the duty via access agreements with the person running those services.
(5) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force and within every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish an annual report on the measures in the Framework.
(6) Any report produced under subsection (5) must include—
(a) a summary of measures taken to reform the rail workforce as a result of provisions of the Framework;
(b) data on—
(i) workforce productivity,
(ii) cost savings,
(iii) changes in overtime expenditure, and
(iv) reasons for any delays in implementation of the provisions of the Framework.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any report produced under subsection (5).
(8) The Secretary of State may issue directions to Great British Railways under section 7 of this Act where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it has not met its duty under subsection (3).”
This new clause makes provision for a Working Practices and Productivity Modernisation Framework.
New clause 56—Anti-social noise—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit any individual on passenger rail services from purposefully playing content with audio from personal electronic devices without the use of headphones in such a way that causes a disturbance to other passengers.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any person that contravenes the prohibition set out under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in Section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce statutory regulations on the use of electronic audio devices on rail services.
New clause 57—Ticketing and Settlement Agreement—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (‘the agreement’).
(2) The agreement must set out the—
(a) opening hours, and
(b) range of products sold,
at any ticket office operated by Great British Railways or the Department for Transport Operator.
(3) The agreement must include all measures set out in Schedule 17 of any Ticketing and Settlement Agreement in place on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Changes may only be made to the agreement regarding opening hours or the range of products sold if—
(a) an equality impact assessment, and
(b) consultation process
has been undertaken by the relevant passenger body.
(5) Regulations under this section must establish a process for challenging any changes proposed under subsection (4).
(6) The Secretary of State must decide on any challenge made under subsection (5).”
New clause 58—Metroisation—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a rail metroisation strategy.
(2) The purposes of a strategy under this section must include increasing the proportion and number of passenger journeys under 10 kilometres undertaken using metropolitan rail services.
(3) The strategy under this section must—
(a) include proposals—
(i) for cooperation between Great British Rail, the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and mayors for the purpose of developing and delivering metropolitan rail services;
(ii) for the funding of those services;
(iii) for the development of local metroisation area plans by local planning authorities and mayoral authorities;
(iv) for provision of multimodal ticketing across transport within the area served by any metropolitan rail services;
(b) specify the governance arrangements for metropolitan rail services provided for by a corporation under subparagraph (a)(i).
(4) For the purpose of this section—
‘local metroisation area plan’ means a plan for the delivery of rail services and ancillary services to an area served by metropolitan rail provision, including—
(a) the intended outcome of the provision of such services;
(b) station access and interchange arrangements;
(c) the funding model for those services;
(d) a projection of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre travelled using the relevant metropolitan rail provision;
‘mayoral authorities’ means—
(a) a mayoral combined authority within the meaning given by section 107A(8) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) a mayoral combined county authority within the meaning given by section 27(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
‘metropolitan rail services’ means rail services that start and end within an area with a radius of 25 km from a designated point within a local authority or mayoral authority area.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for rail metroisation, including cooperation with mayoral authorities to deliver that metroisation.
New clause 59—GBR contribution to town growth—
“Great British Railways may enter into a joint venture or partnership vehicle with a mayoral development corporation for the purpose of delivering rail infrastructure and services to town growth zones, station investment zones, or new green towns promoted by, or otherwise connected with, that mayoral development corporation.”
This new clause would enable GBR to enter into agreements with mayoral development corporations to deliver rail to areas of new local growth.
Government amendments 92 and 93.
Amendment 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
“on an equal basis via any means of sale, including online and at station ticket offices,”.
This amendment would give GBR a statutory function to ensure that passenger fares must be sold at ticket offices on the same basis as online.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 56, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) ensuring the safety, including safety from assault, of all GBR and non-GBR employees that facilitate railway services, and
(i) ensuring that there are safe staffing levels to facilitate railway services.”
Amendment 64, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(h) acting as the single employer of all persons currently employed by—
(i) Network Rail,
(ii) franchises operated by DfT Operator Limited,
(iii) franchises operated by rail companies under contracts for passenger rail services between those companies and the Department for Transport, and
(iv) such other companies operating or facilitating rail services as the Secretary of State may specify, provided that any such specification is made following consultation with and with the agreement of relevant trade unions.”
This amendment would add to GBR’s statutory functions a duty to act as a single employer for all rail workers transferring into it from Network Rail and DfT franchises, and for persons employed by rail companies wholly owned by Scottish and Welsh Ministers to be transferred into GBR subject to the agreement of those ministers.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.
(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.
Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(a) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal under Section 67 a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary.”
Amendment 166, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) a regional railway undertaking that is nominated by any other body that is a relevant local government body for the purposes of this subsection.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘regional railway undertaking’ means a company that is—
(a) wholly owned by a relevant local government body, or
(b) limited by guarantee.”
This amendment would ensure that a devolution agreement could be reached with a devolved railway body whose geographic coverage may vary from current mayoral area boundaries.
Government amendments 94 and 95.
Amendment 150, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) A direction under this section may only be given as a last resort, and only if the executive head of Great British Railways has had to be removed because Great British Railways is failing to comply with its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Great British Railways to a last resort.
Amendment 46, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must provide a copy of a direction, variation or revocation published in accordance with subsection (5) to the Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5B) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment would require that any published direction, or variation or revocation of a direction, issued to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State is provided to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
Amendment 151, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) the Secretary of State has drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance to GBR to circumstances where GBR was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 152, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may only give guidance under this section if—
(a) Scottish Ministers have drawn to Great British Railways’ attention that Great British Railways is not meeting a key performance indicator set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators], and
(b) Great British Railways has not taken action to remedy this failing within the period of two months.”
This amendment would restrict Scottish Ministers’ ability to issue guidance to Great British Railways to circumstances where Great British Railways was failing to meet a key performance indicator as specified in NC53.
Amendment 28, in clause 13, page 7, line 27, at end insert
“, including the levying of charges on providers of railway rolling stock.”
This amendment ensures that the charges GBR may impose include possible levies on rolling stock companies.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 8, line 22, after “publish” insert “lay before Parliament”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the Rail Strategy before Parliament.
Amendment 4, page 8, line 23, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
Amendment 55, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the expansion of the railway network to rural population settlements that are currently not served by the railway, and
(d) co-operation between GBR and relevant local and regional transport authorities, for the purpose of integrating railways with bus services and active travel options including cycling routes and walking routes.”
This amendment would require that the rail strategy to include measures to support rail travel in rural areas, and measures to better integrate rail travel with other travel options, including active travel.
Amendment 68, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) resolving key capacity constraints of national strategic importance, including Ely Junction.”
This amendment is related to NC35. It would require that the Rail Strategy includes consideration of key capacity constraints, and include Ely Junction as such a constraint.
Amendment 72, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
“(c) the provision of rail services to areas experiencing permanent or seasonal population change within the meaning of section (Population change: railway services).”
Amendment 65, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (“the level crossings strategy”).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 66, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 85, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include Key Performance Indicators for GBR, including—
(a) for operating a safe railway,
(b) for promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,
(c) for promoting the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of goods,
(d) for increasing the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport,
(e) for promoting high levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers Council,
(f) for minimising the number of services delayed or cancelled,
(g) for delivering value for money, taking into account the costs that will need to be met from public funds and the need to make efficient use of those funds,
(h) for improving efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.
(2B) The rail strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 38, page 8, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) When the strategy is revised or replaced [in accordance with subsection (4)(b)], the Secretary must lay before Parliament the revised or replaced strategy, subject to subsection (4B).
(4B) The duty under subsection (4A) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that all revisions made to the strategy are non-substantive.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any replacement, or substantively revised, rail strategy.
Amendment 86, page 8, line 34, leave out
“the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement strategy”
and insert
“the revised or replacement strategy may not be brought into force unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Amendment 170, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) When preparing the rail strategy, the Secretary of State must ensure that it aligns with the ten-year strategy for UK Infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to align with the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 90, page 9, line 2, after “Ministers” insert
“, Scottish Ministers, the Mayor of London, Mayors of Mayoral Combined Authorities or Mayoral Combined County Authorities,”.
Amendment 171, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, at end insert—
“(d) the ten-year strategy for UK infrastructure, CP 1344.”
This amendment would require GBR and the ORR to have regard to the Government's ten-year infrastructure strategy, laid before Parliament in June 2025, CP 1344.
Amendment 87, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) Great British Railways must prepare an annual report to be laid before Parliament detailing its performance in meeting, and its forward plan to meet, its statutory duties.”
Amendment 67, in clause 17, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) Any proposals by the Secretary of State and Great British Railways about how they intend to meet the target under this section must include an assessment of the impact of those proposals on level crossings.”
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (a) and insert—
“(a) so as to protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment replaces the requirement to consider the interests of users of the railway and needs of disabled users of the railway with a requirement to protect and promote the rights of those persons.
Amendment 70, page 10, line 17, after “particular,” insert
“in the manner best calculated to make improvements for”.
This amendment would require the duty-holders to exercise their functions in a way that improves accessibility of the rail network rather than only promoting the interests of disabled persons.
Amendment 53, page 10, line 26, at end insert
“including the value of public investments”.
This amendment adds a requirement to consider the value of public investments as part of the general duty on cost-efficiency in relation to public funds.
Amendment 30, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) so as to maximise, so far as practicable within the resources available, the social and economic benefits resulting from the operation of the railway network in Great Britain,
(h) having regard to the effect the provision of railway services has on the environment,
(i) so as to increase the use of railways relative to other modes of transport,
(j) so as to achieve targets towards the full accessibility of the rail network,
(k) so as to secure the affordability of fares,
(l) so as to improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to maximise social and economic benefits, achieve targets for modal shift and accessibility, secure the affordability of fares and improve connectivity between rail and other forms of transport.
Amendment 35, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to promote the transfer into direct employment by GBR of non-GBR employees who facilitate railway services.”
This amendment ensures that Great British Railways performs its duties in a way that ensures the maximum possible insourcing and integration of the rail workforce.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) acting in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner,”.
This amendment would place a requirement on Ministers, Great British Railways and the ORR to exercise their functions in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the overall distance travelled by passengers—
(i) by rail,
(ii) by rail relative to private car use and domestic flights, and
(iii) resulting from the integration of rail services with active travel, bus, tram, metro, coach, ferry and any other public transport services.”
Amendment 157, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(g) in the manner best calculated to increase the number travelling by railway,
(h) in the manner best calculated to contribute to economic growth,
(i) in the manner best calculated to increase private sector investment and involvement in the railways and railway services,
(j) in the manner best calculated to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways,
(k) in the manner best calculated to increase levels of passenger satisfaction as monitored by The Passengers’ Council, and
(l) in the manner best calculated to improve efficiency and productivity in the delivery of railway services.”
This amendment gives Great British Railways additional duties to promote passenger growth, economic growth, and increased private sector investment in the railways.
Amendment 59, page 10, line 28, at end insert—
“provided that they must not favour the conditions of paragraph (f) over the conditions of paragraph (a) to the extent that any station may not have step-free access as a result of balancing the requirements.”
Amendment 36, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“‘non-GBR employees’ means—
(a) employees of a company or body contracted to provide services to GBR to facilitate railway services, including cleaning;
(b) employees of companies granted a licence to operate services on GBR infrastructure;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following consultation with such trade unions as the Secretary of State may specify.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 158, page 10, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and the delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) passenger comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including levels of fares, the availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion, including growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”
This amendment defines standards of railway performance for the purposes of Great British Railways functions.
Amendment 167, page 10, line 41, at end insert—
“‘rights’ of passengers and disabled passengers includes rights under the Equality Act 2010, data protection legislation (including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and consumer protection legislation (including the Consumer Rights Act 2015), and other legal rights to non-discrimination, accessibility, privacy, fair treatment, information and redress.”
This amendment is consequential upon amendment 29.
Amendment 57, in clause 19, page 11, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) In meeting the duty under subsection (2), they must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce incidents of assault against persons working on the railways, and
(b) ensure levels of staffing sufficient to meet the duty.”
This amendment would ensure GBR will have a duty to reduce staff assaults and protect safe staffing levels.
Amendment 159, in clause 20, page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment requires the ORR to promote competition in its appeals role.
Amendment 160, page 11, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the exemption for ORR’s functions under section 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993 from its competition duty.
Amendment 31, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(h) its functions as the enforcement body for rail passenger rights and obligations, consumer protection and accessibility, including passenger related licence conditions.”
This amendment means that the ORR’s duty to promote competition does not apply when it conflicts with its passenger rights enforcement duties.
Amendment 54, page 11, line 31, insert—
“provided that such exercise does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration or unreasonably increase the cost to public funds of providing railway services.”
This amendment means that ORR must exercise its duty to promote competition in a way that does not adversely affect passenger rights, network integration, or unreasonably increase costs to public funds.
Amendment 91, in clause 25, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not designate a service currently commissioned by—
(a) a local government body as defined in Section 5, or
(b) Transport for London
without obtaining consent from the relevant body.”
Amendment 75, page 14, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not vary or revoke a designation so as to permit the operation of railway passenger services by any person other than a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing any designation of services in such a way that allows operation by a company other than a public sector company.
Amendment 76, in clause 28, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section must not provide that railway passenger services are exempt from designation unless those services are to be provided by a public sector company.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from exempting any passenger service from designation unless it is provided by the public sector.
Amendment 77, in clause 31, page 16, line 31, leave out from “contract” to end of line 37 and insert “to—
(a) Great British Railways, or
(b) one or more GBR companies that are public sector companies.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s duty to secure provision of passenger rail services is performed using public sector companies exclusively.
Amendment 88, page 16, line 32, at end insert—
“(a) Great British Railways or a GBR Company may sub-contract a direct award under this section to a private train operating company.”
Amendment 78, page 17, line 5, leave out from “companies” to end of line 6.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Scottish Ministers.
Amendment 79, page 17, line 11, leave out from “companies” to end of line 12.
This amendment is related to Amendment 77, but for services designated by Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 80, page 17, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) In this section “direct award” means the award of a public service contract without any competitive tendering procedure.”
Amendment 143, in clause 34, page 18, line 21, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 144 to 147 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, or young people aged 26 to 30.
Amendment 32, page 18, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Great British Railways must provide a scheme enabling persons who are British residents to travel at discounted fares for an annual fee on railway passenger services provided by all licensed rail operators.”
Amendment 144, page 18, line 30, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 145, page 18, line 33, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 146, page 18, line 37, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 147, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert—
“UK veterans, members of the UK armed forces and their families, aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 143.
Amendment 81, in clause 35, page 19, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
“(a) Great British Railways, being a company wholly owned by the Secretary of State,
(b) a GBR company, that is, a company wholly owned (directly or through one or more wholly owned subsidiaries) by Great British Railways,
(c) a company that is wholly owned by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers,
(d) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers, or
(e) a company that is wholly and jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers;”.
This amendment defines GBR and GBR companies in such a way as to ensure that they are always public sector companies.
Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) must protect and promote the rights and interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services, including in particular the rights and interests of disabled persons.”
This amendment adds the requirement to protect and promote passenger rights and the rights of disabled persons to the duties of the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 71, page 19, line 35, leave out
“must have particular regard to”
and insert—
“must take all reasonable steps to promote improvements in meeting”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.
Amendment 60, page 20, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) In taking into account costs under subsection (1)(b), and having regard to its duty under paragraph (1)(a), the Council must not treat the cost of providing step-free access as sufficient reason for preferment of other reasonable adjustments to meet the interests and needs of disabled persons.”
Amendment 47, in clause 42, page 23, line 12, leave out from “must” to the end of line 18, and insert—
“take such action, from the range of enforcement actions open to them, as is necessary to remedy or prevent the contravention, unless there is a legal impediment to so doing or the issue has satisfactorily been remedied.
(4) The ORR must take such enforcement action as required by this section within one month of the matter being referred by the Passengers’ Council.”
This amendment would require the ORR to take enforcement action within one month of an issue being referred to it by the Passengers’ Council.
Amendment 61, in clause 46, page 24, line 29, at end insert—
“including provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Amendment 161, in clause 47, page 25, line 24, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert—
“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”
This amendment gives the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.
Amendment 39, in clause 48, page 26, line 3, before “a mayoral strategic authority” insert “the mayor of”.
This amendment clarifies that statutory duties to consult apply to the mayor of a mayoral combined authority.
Amendment 51, in clause 49, page 26, line 29, at end insert—
“(fa) any proposed—
(i) closure,
(ii) reduction in provision of, or
(iii) amendment to the operating hours of,
ticket offices,”
This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council on closure of, reduction in provision of, or any changes to opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 58, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) any proposed changes to staffing levels at stations or on trains.
(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsections (2)(a) and 2(h).”
This amendment would require any changes to staffing at stations or on trains to be subject to consultation with the Passengers’ Council, and require the Passengers’ Council to consult the public on such changes as well as on changes under subsection (2)(a).
Amendment 62, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(h) provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”
Amendment 52, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Passengers’ Council must undertake a public consultation before responding to Great British Railways about any matter under subsection (2)(fa).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51 and requires the Passengers’ Council to consult the public about proposals from GBR to close, or change the opening hours of, ticket offices.
Amendment 63, in clause 53, page 28, line 12, after “persons” insert
“including but not limited to provision of step-free access at stations and on trains”.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 69, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In performing the duty under subsection (1), Great British Railways must have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for both freight and passenger services.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways, in performing its capacity duty, to have particular regard to increasing capacity at Ely Junction for the benefit of both freight and passenger services.
Amendment 162, page 36, line 1, leave out from “to” the end of line 4 and insert—
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Amendment 8, page 36, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.
This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.
Amendment 9, page 36, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Amendment 163, in clause 64, page 36, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 148, in clause 68, page 38, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) When determining an appeal under this Chapter, the Office of Rail and Road must decide the matter on its merits, having regard to the objectives set out in this Act.”
This amendment would change the current appeals provision so that appeals can be decided on the merits.
Amendment 26, page 38, line 16, leave out from “must” to the end of line 20 and insert—
“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”
This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.
Amendment 27, page 38, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or
(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”
This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.
Government amendments 97 to 106
Amendment 73, in clause 70, page 40, line 36, at end insert—
“a GBR company, or other public sector company,”.
This amendment would change the definition of an infrastructure manager in the relevant 2016 regulations so as to exclude GBR companies and other public sector companies, alongside GBR.
Amendment 74, page 41, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) In regulation 14 (establishing, determining and collecting charges) after paragraph (9) insert—
‘(9A) Paragraph (9) does not apply to GBR.’
(5) In regulation 19 (capacity allocation), after paragraph (4) insert—
‘(4A) Paragraph (4) does not apply to GBR.’”
This amendment exempts GBR from the requirement on infrastructure managers to operate separate accounts for separate functions.
Amendment 164, page 41, line 5, leave out clause 71.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the terms of existing open access contracts.
Government amendment 107.
Amendment 149, in clause 72, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Non-GBR infrastructure, facilities and services which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this clause.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under clause 72, clarifying that privately funded sidings and terminals are not brought into scope.
Amendment 165, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Amendment 41, in clause 81, page 47, line 35, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 40, page 48, line 6, after “must consult” insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 42, page 49, line 4, after “must consult" insert “the mayor of”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 110 to 117.
Amendment 44, page 55, line 38, leave out clause 92.
Amendment 45, in clause 92, page 56, line 24, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision for the public ownership of rolling stock by Great British Railways;
(b) make provision for Great British Railways to buy and own future passenger rolling stock as—
(i) current rolling stock contracts end, and
(ii) old rolling stock are taken out of commission.”
Government amendments 118 and 119.
Amendment 82, in clause 96, page 58, line 5, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Scottish Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 83, page 58, line 7, after “company” insert “wholly and”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that where a company is jointly owned by GBR and Welsh Ministers, they together own the totality of the stake in that company.
Amendment 84, page 58, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In this Act, a company is ‘wholly and jointly owned’ by the Secretary of State, Great British Railways, the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers if every member of the company is—
(a) one or more of those persons, or
(b) a company that is itself wholly owned by one or more of those persons.”
This amendment defines the terms “wholly and jointly owned” in such a way as to ensure that companies that are wholly or jointly owned by GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, are always fully public sector companies.
Amendment 3, page 59, line 15, at end insert—
“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”
This amendment is related to NC6 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.
Government amendments 120 to 123.
Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 63, line 6, at end insert—
“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”
This aims to ensure that the Code of Practice explicitly includes a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.
Government amendments 168 and 169.
Government amendment 124.
Amendment 154, in schedule 2, page 65, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) The date specified in sub-paragraph 1(d) must be at least 24 months before the start of the funding period.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the ORR and GBR of the amount of financial assistance for the next funding period at least two years before that funding period is due to start.
Amendment 7, page 65, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must include objectives relating to passenger rail services.
(3A) The objectives set out under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include, in particular, objectives relating to—
(a) the carriage of passengers or goods, save as already provided for under sub-paragraph (3);
(b) the railway network or railway assets (including objectives relating to the provision of the railway network or railway assets after the end of the funding period);
(c) fares;
(d) the accessibility of railway services to people with disabilities;
(e) the protection of persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways.”
This amendment would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Amendment 43, page 66, line 19, at end insert “mayor”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Amendment 155, page 67, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) The plan must set out how Great British Railways will ensure its activities minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires GBR to consider how to minimise costs to taxpayers.
Amendment 156, page 67, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) whether carrying on those activities will be done in such a way as to minimise costs to the taxpayer.”
This amendment requires the ORR to provide an assessment of whether GBR will minimise taxpayer costs before the Secretary of State approves the business plan.
Government amendment 125.
Amendment 6, page 74, line 27, at end insert “including passenger services”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 7, would align funding of designated passenger train services with the five-year funding cycle for infrastructure.
Government amendments 126 to 140.
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 92, line 20, at end insert—
“, and any person exercising functions of a public nature on its behalf in connection with rail systems or services for which Great British Railways is responsible.”
This amendment makes any person exercising functions of a public nature on behalf of Great British Railways subject to the public sector equality duty.
Government amendments 141 and 142.
Keir Mather
It is my pleasure to open this debate on the Railways Bill. As we have said before, this landmark piece of legislation will deliver the once-in-a-generation reform that our country’s railways are crying out for. For the first time in 30 years, Britain will finally have a railway owned by the public, for the public—one that puts passengers first, seizes the opportunities of freight, offers a better deal for taxpayers and is greater than the sum of its parts.
On Second Reading, we heard widespread support for reform from across the House. In Committee, we saw agreement across all parties about the need to establish a directing mind for our railways, the need to put passengers first and the need to deliver growth, which we know our railways can deliver when they are at their best. Although there are naturally some disagreements about the details of delivering reform, throughout our debates I have yet to hear any other political party suggest an alternative way forward that meets the scale of the challenge that our railways face.
The Government are responding properly to feedback from the House. Following the Transport Committee’s report, we have committed to publish a discussion document on the long-term rail strategy. Last week, we published a policy document setting out the emerging proposition for the Great British Railways licence, and just yesterday, recognising the strength of feeling from both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee, we published a document setting out a timeline for the publication of the key documents that will sit alongside the Bill.
Unlike the previous Government, we are getting on with the business of reform, and we are collaborating with the House to do so. I, together with the Minister for Rail in the other place, have engaged extensively on a number of important issues ahead of the debate. I hope to continue that co-operation when I respond to the amendments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
One concern that has been repeatedly raised during scrutiny is that Great British Railways will both operate services and have significant influence by being the directing mind over access to the network. If a future Hull Trains application were to compete with a GBR-operated service for scarce capacity on the east coast main line—I know that the Minister, like me, uses Hull Trains—who does he believe passengers would trust to make that decision: the independent regulator or GBR itself?
Keir Mather
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for again raising that important point about open access, as he did on Second Reading. I share his passion for Hull Trains—I am surprised we have not met on a Hull train to have a subsequent conversation about open access. GBR needs to be the directing mind for the railway. It needs to take the decisions on what constitutes best use in a way that is fair, providing a role for open access while also being compliant with its duties, especially in respect of the need to grow rail freight on the network. The Secretary of State will also be compelled to set a rail freight growth target. There is nothing precluding open access from playing its full role as part of our railway under GBR; it certainly can, provided that it offers value for money and the great service that both the right hon. Member and I have experienced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Mather
I would like to make a little bit of progress. [Interruption.] I will let the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) make a short intervention.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on, the issue of open access agreements is very important, because there is an inherent conflict in the arrangements in the Bill. I am unclear about whether it is the Transport Secretary or the Office of Rail and Road who will take decisions. The open access bid from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway would see a direct link from Shropshire to London, with trains stopping in the important market town of Wellington. He talked about economic growth, and if that direct access were to be allowed, it would give a multimillion-pound boost to the market town of Wellington. Who will make the decision on that?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pushing me further on this issue. It is GBR’s responsibility to determine what constitutes best use of the railway in relation to its duties. The role of the ORR in that process is that decisions can be referred to it when it is the view of stakeholders—whether it be an open access operator or anybody else—that GBR has incorrectly applied the framework by which it needs to determine best use on the railway and has made a decision in a way that is irrational or unfair, prejudicing one stakeholder over the other. There are important and robust safeguards for the ORR to be able to determine whether the way in which GBR has determined best use is consistent with the framework that we have provided for it. I hope that provides him with reassurance.
Keir Mather
I would like to make some progress; I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.
I will use my first speech to speak about the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which I commend to the House. I look forward to hearing about some of the amendments tabled by other hon. Members; I will respond to them at the conclusion of proceedings.
Let me begin with amendment 92. I believe that in this House we need to be honest: under previous Governments, the British people were promised real change only for it to be abandoned on first contact with political reality. Not this time. Labour promised to nationalise our railways—no ifs, no buts—and today that is exactly what we will do. We are acting in law so that Great British Railways—the people’s railway—is owned by the British people and run in their interests, not in the service of private profit. I know that might appal Opposition parties, but they should believe me that ordinary people in Britain will not ask why we are taking this bold step; they will be asking those who had the power to do so, “What took you so very long?”
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill. I recently had a productive meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place regarding my amendment to close loopholes that could allow private companies to creep back into operating GBR rail services. He kindly promised to take that on board, and I am pleased to see those issues addressed by Government amendments 92 and 106, as well as the commitment to bring in further changes regarding the Secretary of State having powers of designation to ensure that they cannot be used for back-door privatisation. May I invite the Minister to provide further commentary and reassurance to the House regarding the Government’s moves on that issue and the very welcome position they have taken?
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope he sees that the Government have tabled amendments to ensure that Great British Railways cannot be privatised by the back door. Any changes would have to be made through an Act of Parliament, with full consultation with the House. I am sure that the people who have sent us here would look at any proposition to turn back the clock on the momentous decision we are taking—to go back to a railway that was fractured, in decline and confusing for passengers to use—and encourage every Member of Parliament not to do so. That is the importance of our amendments, and I am glad that my hon. Friends sees that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
GBR launched in my constituency when South Western Railway came back into public ownership. The engineers at the depot said that bringing rail and the railways together would improve customer experience. Will my hon. Friend expand on that?
Keir Mather
I am glad that my hon. Friend is working so closely with the people who drive our railway and discussing the impact that GBR will have. She is right to say that, by integrating track and train and having a single directing mind for our railway, we can think more holistically about the skills of those we need to drive that change. That is a really exciting possibility to take forward.
Finally on amendment 92, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner). It is no exaggeration to say that, without his efforts, this historic provision would not be entering the statute book. I thank him for his work with my officials and the Rail Minister to make that change a reality.
I see that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) is again attempting through an amendment—we discussed this in Committee—to press the railway back into a mode of franchising. The 30 years of privatisation are what left our railways in the fragmented and dysfunctional state they were in when this Government came to power. We took immediate steps to fix that, passing the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. It is only right that any future Government that wish to return us to a railway with rising costs, confusing and inconsistent fares, and record cancellations should have to seek agreement from this place.
I turn to new clauses 49 and 50, and amendments 124 and 132. They introduce a new route for the independent sector regulator, the ORR, to modify non-GBR operator licences. That will allow the ORR, after consultation with the operator and others and the passing of a statutory notice period, to modify the contents of a licence. That approach is consistent with that taken in other regulated sectors such as water, electricity and gas. Such modifications will be needed across the industry to reflect the changes we are making in this Bill and to ensure the consistent adoption of standards and services across the rail network.
Amendments 168 and 169 ensure that the ORR can still make technical modifications to the GBR licence with GBR’s consent. That reflects the fact that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in every minor and technical amendment to the GBR licence. From day one, we have been committed to creating a simpler and more unified rail sector. Industry-wide alignment is critical to ensuring that passengers and other users of the rail network benefit from a less fragmented system. The amendments will ensure that all operators, not just GBR, are in lockstep in adhering to consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog, obligations relating to rail safety and the effective delivery of vital cross-industry functions by GBR.
New clause 48 and amendments 110 to 119, and 126 to 128 all build on the transfer scheme provisions that were added to the Bill in Committee. New clause 48, together with amendments 118 and 119, introduces a new power to vary the application of certain taxes in relation to transfer schemes. That ensures that we can restructure the public sector and move staff and assets into GBR in a tax-neutral manner, avoiding a complex and unnecessary money-go-round that would hinder the delivery of better public services. Beyond that, the remaining amendments I referred to are all technical and ensure that the transfer scheme provisions are fit for purpose.
Amendments 107, 108, 141 and 142 are technical amendments to clarify the definition of GBR infrastructure and to ensure that GBR can run trains on third-party infrastructure, for example High Speed 1.
You will have to buckle in for this one, Madam Deputy Speaker: amendments 93, 97 to 106, 109, 120 to 123, 133, 137, 139 and 140 are all technical amendments that ensure the Railways Bill supports the potential future corporate structures of GBR. As I have already said, the Bill will be a long-lasting piece of legislation, and it is right that it provides an appropriate level of flexibility for GBR to adapt and change in the years ahead. It must design itself to meet the challenges of the day, and the Bill must enable it to do that.
Finally, amendments 94, 95 and 136 correct an oversight in the legislation and ensure that Transport for London and other local government bodies can continue to co-operate with the Secretary of State for specific purposes, as well as with GBR, reflecting that decisions about devolution will remain with the Secretary of State.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend for moving at such pace on this. I am sure that many commuters around the country will be pleased to see the progress. On devolution and the integration with local transport schemes, I know the route, the process and the decision maker if we want to get a new Metrolink tram station in Greater Manchester. If I want to reopen the Middleton Junction train station in my constituency, what route do I go down?
Keir Mather
That is exactly why we are establishing GBR: to provide my hon. Friend with a consistent approach to making the case for the railway infrastructure improvements that he needs. Also, the devolution settlement enshrined in the Bill will ensure that GBR can work at the local level, with the ability for mayors to fund GBR directly to achieve specific local goals. It is our hope that through that devolved approach, with GBR able to work in lockstep with the mayors who are pioneering place-based politics across the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend can realise the changes to the rail system that he so desires.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Like others, I congratulate him on the speed at which he is moving this forward. He talks about the ability of Great British Railways to support local infrastructure. I have concerns about one of the railway stations in my constituency, Harlow Mill, and the number of suicides because of the lack of safety provision there. Will moving to Great British Railways mean that we can address some of those issues more easily?
Keir Mather
We certainly hope that it will. On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises, will he consider writing to either myself or the Rail Minister so that we can think about how we can better integrate those live concerns about people suffering from mental health crises and how we might better protect them on our railway? That is an incredibly important point. Just to conclude—
Wendy Morton
The Minister mentioned devolution and what a difference that would make in terms of the mayors’ role. We have an issue in Aldridge, which I am sure he is well aware of and well rehearsed on, in that the current Labour mayor has taken the funding away. Will the Minister reassure me that GBR will work with Mayor Parker and with me to make sure that we deliver a railway station in Aldridge?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is right to say that I am well aware of the specific measure that she speaks to. Having the relationship between GBR, the mayors and political representatives in Westminster, such as herself, is critical, and it is part of the purpose of GBR to better facilitate those conversations. I am sure that, through its establishment, she can take forward the debate on this particular matter with her usual passion.
Keir Mather
I will not give way again; I am sorry. I want to leave time for colleagues to contribute.
The Government have also tabled amendments 96, 125, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135 and 138, which are minor, correctional or consequential amendments to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is fit for purpose and the statute book is kept tidy. They are all sensible amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure that rail reform can be implemented properly and that GBR can govern the railway for years to come. I am keen to get on with the substantive business of the debate, so I commend the amendments to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.
This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.
Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.
Jerome Mayhew
I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.
We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
When privatisation happened, the Government of the day fought hard to keep state-owned foreign railways out of the running of the railways, but they were compelled to accept them by European Union legislation. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman described the involvement of state-owned foreign railways as “a gift from abroad”, so may I congratulate him on his bravery in taking a more pro-European approach on this question than John Major?
Jerome Mayhew
I am interested in pragmatism. I am interested in what works for the taxpayer and for the user of the railways. If state companies want to operate as private businesses in the United Kingdom and bring benefits to the United Kingdom taxpayer and rail user, bring it on! What I do not want, and what is clearly wrong, is to impose nationalisation of the rail network across the board for political reasons, because it is going to bring some real problems, just like it did the last time Labour decided to have a go at this.
As I have said, what the Government are doing is a mistake, but if they insist on it, we need this Bill to direct the top to tell GBR what it is for and what to do. New clause 52—the “purpose” clause missing from the Bill—starts that process by making it clear what GBR is there to do. It is a non-exhaustive list, but it includes
“prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers…providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers…expanding and improving the network…modernising working practices”—
putting the customer’s needs above interests of the unions—
“ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators…integrating track and train…and…supporting multimodal integration”.
As track and train are integrated, this Bill should have been giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver the necessary dynamic management to undertake what is, in anyone’s book, a huge organisational change.
Wendy Morton
Is it not the truth that the Government were given an idea from our days in government, and that it was a golden opportunity to reform the railways of this country? But what has actually happened? Ideology has gotten in the way, and it has gotten in the way of the passengers first and foremost. They are going to be the real losers in this.
Jerome Mayhew
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. It seems that the Government have insisted on going back to the future: back to the 1970s, with state control and a revamped British Railways. They have even chosen the same logo, which I think tells us a lot about their intentions.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?
Jerome Mayhew
I stand to correct the hon. Gentleman: the most punctual is, I believe, Greater Anglia, which services my constituency, but the point he makes is a good one. The greater integration of track and train brings greater efficiencies and leads to greater punctuality. That is exactly why that was Conservative party policy going into the last general election. What we do not need is increased control by perhaps heavily unionised workforces being given extra political power through nationalisation, taking the focus off the customer and focusing on the organisation and its purposes instead.
We have the track and train being integrated, and this Bill should be giving GBR the tools it needs to deliver dynamic management. That is crucial for a big organisational change. It should be putting passengers first by giving GBR the power to sort out the worst of the union-imposed inefficient working practices. How can we seriously have a seven-day timetable staffed by a five-day working week, requiring voluntary overtime to staff just normal service? It is clearly ridiculous. This legislation should give GBR the power and, importantly, through this new clause, the political support it will need to fix that problem.
We need to enable drivers to operate train doors where that is not yet standard practice and to fix similar Spanish practices. I think that is very unfair on the Spanish, by the way, who surprisingly run a much more efficient railway in some respects. We need to increase flexible driver training and operation, and so much more. Under new clause 54, tabled in my name, a working practices and productivity modernisation framework would provide GBR with that direction and give it the political cover to act.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member will be aware that I have already addressed that question in answer to one of his colleagues, but if international companies, whether state-owned or private, make a tender that is more attractive than any other operator applying for that tender, the people who benefit most are the taxpayers and service users of the United Kingdom. That is what happens.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree with new clause 85, which would make the interests of disabled people a key performance indicator for Great British Railways? I have been contacted by Katrina, a constituent from Sproatley, who has an upper limb disability as a result of thalidomide and relies heavily on rail travel. There are many services on which she cannot pre-book a seat, which for many of us is a convenience but for her is essential, because she finds being jostled frightening. She needs to have her interests recognised by the railway. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it might be very useful for the Government to accept new clause 85?
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the needs of disabled passengers such as his constituent, whom he so ably represents, are very important. That is one performance indicator that the Government should impose on GBR, but is it not ridiculous that we have to have Government action to impose KPIs on a railway? We should not be doing it this way.
Instead of giving GBR a clear purpose and direction and then supporting it to deliver, the Government are imposing nationalisation, which will bring with it, as we see in the Bill, an inevitable explosion of bureaucracy, civil service plans, targets, long-term strategies and civil service rights to give guidance and direction, all in the name of the Secretary of State. What will be the impact of this on GBR over time? Will it lead to the dynamic management that this structural reorganisation must have if it is to have a hope of working? Let history be our guide. I cannot think of a single example of a nationalised industry in any country, either now or in the past, that is or was a byword for management dynamism. Members should try it themselves—we cannot think of one, can we? If GBR needs dynamic management, how can nationalisation possibly be the answer?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On dynamic management, I thought the Bill was about putting community at the heart of things. My hon. Friend knows that, for years, I have been campaigning for a through train from Grimsby through Market Rasen into London. When Mark Harper was our Transport Secretary, we were on the verge of getting one—we actually had a trial run. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance on behalf of the Conservative party that when he gets into power at the next election—and he will—he will reopen this whole issue and give Grimsby the direct service to London that it deserves?
Jerome Mayhew
The Father of the House is nailing me down to a cast-iron assurance at the Dispatch Box. I am not in a position to do that, but I fully expect to be in this role in a future Government and look forward to the opportunity to encourage open access to provide the through train that the right hon. Gentleman needs or for GBR to do so.
If GBR needs the dynamic management that we say it does, the Government are imposing for political reasons—very popular ones among their Back Benchers, as we have heard—a management system that has never worked in the past, but somehow it will be different this time. They have made their choice and we need to make the best of it. At the very least, this founding legislation should identify core key performance indicators which will survive the test of time in legislation. New clause 53 and amendment 158 provide them. They are detailed, but in essence, they focus on reliability, safety, comfort and on-board experience, affordability and value for money, passenger and network growth, financial sustainability and freight growth.
Until covid, privatisation undeniably brought a focus on ridership that had been missing previously under nationalisation. I accept that private businesses are not trying to be nice; they work to increase ridership because it brings in fare income, which creates profit. They are not directed to do so; the natural incentives work to solve the problem. The innovation of privatisation, fought tooth and nail at the time by Labour and the unions, was supported by passengers, who voted with their feet. British Rail oversaw the long-term decline in ridership from about 1 billion in 1950, reducing in a straight line to 750 million in 1992. Privatisation immediately reversed that 40-year trend of decline, growing back ridership not just to 1 billion but to 1.7 billion in 2019.
Under the Bill, GBR does not even have a passenger growth target. New clause 14 in my name would rectify that by requiring the Secretary of State to set GBR a passenger growth target and to keep it under review. How can the Government be against that? They have agreed to put one in for rail freight growth, but for some reason passengers are not listed in the Bill. Instead of these sensible, pro-growth and pro-passenger measures, we have clause after clause of political control, micromanagement of a nationalised structure, and unfettered rights of guidance and direction by the Secretary of State—by which we mean Department for Transport officials—over GBR at any time and for any reason, under clauses 7 and 9. It is a recipe for corporate paralysis where decisions are second-guessed by civil servants.
Amendments 150 and 151 limit at least the giving of guidance by Department for Transport officials to issues where GBR fails to meet a key performance indicator, and the giving of mandatory directions to serious issues where GBR has missed KPIs and the chief executive has been removed in consequence. I fear that over time, as the corporate memory of the train operating companies fades and with it their focus on the customer experience, this focus will be replaced by other incentives.
Heavily unionised workers of a nationalised industry well understand that the Government will now be politically exposed to industrial action as never before. It will be entirely rational for them—I do not blame them for doing so—to use this new bargaining power to increase pay and improve conditions, which sounds good, does it not? Why would they not do so? It does, however, increase costs and reduce productivity. Who benefits? Not the passenger or the taxpayer. Labour will be too weak to stand up for the taxpayer and for fare-paying passengers. Services will become more expensive, worse, less frequent—or all three—and we will be back to the rationing of resources as we see in every nationalised sector.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway.
I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago.
Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments.
I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.
Helen Maguire
Research from the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that 58% of those with visual impairments reported that it was impossible to use ticket vending machines, and I have tabled new clause 38 to ensure a minimum number of accessible ticket machines. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to ensure that railways are accessible for everyone?
Ruth Cadbury
Yes, of course I do, and much of what I am saying stems from the work with did for our report published in February 2025. It is entitled, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about so much more than ramps and lifts, although those things are essential for many, and it must be embedded in the culture of the organisation.
Our amendments seek to embed that aspiration in the Bill, and they follow the work we did on the Bill and the report I just mentioned. Amendment 70 would place duties on Ministers and GBR, and amendment 71 would place duties on the passengers’ council to seek to secure “improvements” to accessibility, rather than just to “promote the…interests” of disabled people, as currently stated in the Bill. Amendment 71 would also require the passengers’ council
“to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.”
The Minister may well say that the Bill will already drive improvements, and that the details will be in the GBR’s business plan and the LTRS, but disabled people would like to see enforceable, statutory responsibilities that require progress, not just vague “having regard to” language, or non-statutory policy documents.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on this subject. Earlier I referred to Katrina, my constituent with thalidomide syndrome who struggles to reserve a seat and feel safe, and to use the railway as she wants to. Does the hon. Lady agree that those are the tests we need to see changed, so that people like Katrina can use the railway safely and see their needs recognised?
Ruth Cadbury
The right hon. Member’s description of Katrina’s needs speak not only for her needs but for those of so many people. He described Katrina’s specific physical needs and need to have a seat, but it is important to recognise that every disabled person’s needs are different. The rail system—indeed, the whole transport system—must be able to adapt and ensure that those needs are met.
I welcome the sheer number of amendments tabled today that cover accessibility. New clause 39 makes a specific request:
“The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.”
and it requires that board to include at least two disabled people. The Government told us that legislating for that recommendation is not needed because the Transport Focus board already has such representation, and general duties under clause 18 will apply when the board is appointed. While I welcome the offer to confirm that intention, why is there resistance to putting such a measure into legislation so that it is secured in the future? To say that Transport Focus currently has such representation, and that therefore the passengers’ council board will too, relies on custom. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to
“promoting…the needs of disabled passengers”
but it relies on a specific interpretation of a general clause, so neither of those measures are secure. In conclusion, I commend the amendments to the House, but I will not push them to a vote as I anticipate that they will attract a fair bit of attention in the other place when the Bill arrives there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill has the right goals: sorting out the convoluted and byzantine structure of our rail industry, and better aligning infrastructure with train operation. But the question before us is whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will achieve those very valid aims.
The Minister gave the impression in Committee that the Bill was beyond any possible reproach or improvement, on the basis that he rejected all Opposition amendments, but we have learned this afternoon that it is possible to improve it, of course, because the Government have tabled their own amendments. If I may begin in the spirit of generosity, I welcome Government amendments 106, 107 and 108, since, as I understand them, they seemingly clarify that GBR will not have powers to seek to take over privately owned infrastructure, such as freight. That will provide some reassurance to the sector, which is welcome.
However, the Bill remains flawed in many ways, so the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the spirit of wishing to remove some of those flaws. I will group our amendments by theme. New clauses 1 and 46 and amendment 1 are intended to provide much better value for the customer and focus on the customer’s journey experience.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
In North East Hampshire, thousands of London-bound commuters rely on trains as an extension of their office, especially when that train is delayed. Despite that, the UK’s onboard wi-fi speed was ranked 16th out of 18 major European and Asian countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that without a statutory passengers’ charter, passengers who spend thousands of pounds a year on season tickets have no reasonable way to hold the railways to account when basic standards, such as reliable wi-fi, are simply not met?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need new clause 1 to provide a railway passengers’ charter fit for the 21st century. With rail fares as high as they are, things like functioning wi-fi or phone signal, enough space for luggage, functioning toilets or even a seat should no longer be seen as indulgent luxuries. I note that the Government have recently announced some serious intentions to improve wi-fi and phone signal, and I wish them all the best with that endeavour.
The new clauses and amendments I mentioned could deliver significant improvements to passenger safety and security at stations and on trains, and they would require higher standards for those, if adopted.
Helen Maguire
On passenger experience, will my hon. Friend extend my thanks to the Minister and Lord Hendy—I have made them aware of my intention to mention this today—for taking forward new clause 36 via operational arrangements, which will permit a bereaved family member of the armed forces to a fare exemption on Remembrance Sunday?
Olly Glover
I am happy to thank the Minister here and Lord Hendy for engaging with my hon. Friend’s amendment to better enable members of our armed forces, veterans and their families to travel to services on Remembrance Sunday.
New clauses 6 and 2 and amendments 2 and 3 would require GBR to deliver meaningful fares reform and innovation, such as tap-in and tap-out contactless payment, as is currently available in the entirety of the Netherlands, and other forms of convenient digital payment, as well as our rail miles scheme, which would extend the concept of air miles and promote domestic tourism by making journeys on our railways as valuable a commodity as air miles are today.
New clause 9 would reduce the ability of the Department for Transport and the Treasury to meddle in the affairs of GBR, because interference and micromanagement by those organisations has caused a lot of the issues afflicting our railways today. To that end, amendments 7 and 6 would align track and train budgets, putting right what I feel is a detailed and structural flaw in the Bill. The Bill’s current intention to have infrastructure subject to five-year funding cycles, but funding for passenger services and train operation subject to spending review timescales, undermines the ability to achieve a “whole railway” way of thinking, planning and funding.
Amendments 8 and 9 are intended to deliver stronger accountability and transparency for GBR in relation to capacity allocation and network access fees, powers and decisions, particularly given that freight will remain in the private sector and as an open access endeavour.
Amendment 5 and new clause 3 counter the Bill’s poverty of ambition for the railways’ potential to further tackle road congestion, improve access to work and productivity, and cut carbon emissions, as shown by the Government’s repeated and, frankly, bizarre and incomprehensible refusal to include a requirement for a passenger growth target in the Bill. This is an area on which Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives all tabled similar amendments in Committee—how often does that happen? Not very often, in my experience. Myriad stakeholder organisations have made the same point, as indeed has the Transport Committee.
Perhaps the noble Lord Hendy’s recent comments to the Transport Committee partially give the game away. When I asked him about summer service cuts to Avanti West Coast services, he said:
“It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to reduce train services in the short term when there is less demand for them.”
On one level that is an understandable view, but where there is lower demand for train services, we need to look at the reasons for that, and perhaps Avanti West Coast’s outrageous fares and poor track record are part of that, or it may be less attractive because of the lack of open access on the west coast main line compared with the east coast.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Melton Constable in my constituency has a proud railway heritage—the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway steam train adorns its village sign. New clause 5 would make provision for the exploration of the reinstatement of the orbital railway. Does my hon. Friend agree that being connected to the rail network could bring immense benefits to towns such as Holt? Government support for such a scheme being explored would be very welcome.
Olly Glover
The county of Norfolk suffered particularly from the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, so that needs to be looked at. That is a good example of the potential for rail to improve rural connectivity.
I would not mind so much that the Government are so keen to reduce train service where there is less demand if they or the rail industry appeared to have a comparable appetite for increasing services when there is very clearly high demand, as there was recently on the 10.30 from Reading to Penzance. Who could have anticipated that at the start of a bank holiday weekend, during half term, with extremely warm weather forecast, there would be high demand? That train was, to use a technical term, “rammed.” That is why we need a passenger growth target, to ensure that we are not just amending the timetable for a bit of penny-pinching, but to match customer demand. We must ensure that people who take the train to the west country do so again because they have a good experience.
Helen Maguire
Post covid, the number of trains from Epsom and Ewell was halved. My new clause 37 would ensure that there is community consultation on the frequency of train services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sensible thing to do would be to consult the community?
Olly Glover
I commend my hon. Friend for her industry in the number of amendments she has tabled to the Bill. I hope the Government will listen and consider new clause 37, as they did with her new clause 36 regarding veterans.
New clauses 7 and 8 would make more explicit commitments for GBR to have greater environmental and carbon emissions reduction obligations than those currently drafted. Our amendments as a whole would increase GBR’s potential to avoid making the mistakes of the past. They would encourage it to take bold new steps on electrification and deliver truly joined-up journeys and integrated transport and timetables. They would encourage it to have a real, ambitious rail devolution agenda to bring decision making far closer to communities than is currently the case with Whitehall’s domination.
Our amendments would also avoid the total mess of projects led by the Department for Transport, such as the ongoing situation of having no trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes on East West Rail, despite the railway being commissioned 18 months ago. We have HS2—it goes without saying what a mess that is, and that has not been an endeavour led by the private sector. We also have the inter-city express programme for GWR and LNER, which was wildly expensive.
Let me move towards my conclusion. The key test is this: do the Railways Bill and the proposed creation of GBR make my key constituency asks more or less likely to happen? Simpler and better value fares on GWR, particularly during peak times; an end to five-car, overcrowded inter-city operations; a new station at Grove; full electrification between Didcot and Oxford, bringing Oxford into equality with Cambridge, which benefited from such electrification in 1986; an hourly service for Culham; accessibility improvements to Cholsey; and East West Rail actually happening, as I mentioned—only with our amendments do I feel that those things are likely to be within reach.
Although the Government are right about the need to better align track and train and to tackle the current dysfunctional industry structure, the Bill has too many flaws. Do not take that from me—the Transport Committee reached a similar conclusion, with most of the recommendations of its inquiry being rejected by the Government. Absent the Government embracing at least some of the Lib Dem amendments that I have spoken to, we risk creating a GBR that is mired in bureaucracy and overseen by a Department for Transport that is distracted by dubious GBR train colour schemes and somewhat gimmicky social media videos, rather than adopting good practices from other countries and truly transforming our railway. Absent the Government embracing some of our amendments or the House voting on them, the Bill is not fit to go forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming.
I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes.
All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is really important that that scheme includes people who worked at British Rail Engineering Ltd, who were then privatised and lost their passes as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that BREL is also included in that meeting?
John McDonnell
I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together.
My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.
John McDonnell
Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.
Cat Eccles
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?
John McDonnell
I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates.
Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers represent 25% of the directly employed workforce of train operating companies, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that outsourcing creates systemic racism?
John McDonnell
There is significance evidence of low pay and the way that people are discriminated against consistently throughout the outsourcing mechanism. Given all the research that has been done, that is unchallengeable.
I want to concentrate on the issue of loss of skills. Under British Rail, when someone joined the railway, they could have the vision that if they were committed and stuck with the organisation, they could secure additional training and rise up the ladder. All the way up, they would be gaining additional skills, but under outsourcing there has been a lack of investment in skills. The precarious work means that we are failing to invest in the next generation and, as a result, we may not have the skills to operate an effective system.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Broxbourne is an important commuter area when travelling into London. Millions of journeys start and end at stations in my constituency every year, and more than double the national average number of people use the railway to get to work. The line that I and my constituents rely on—Greater Anglia—was one of the first to be taken over by the Government, and not a week goes by without some sort of incident causing long delays and cancellations. We have not seen any improvements from nationalisation. While I do not support nationalisation in principle, I agree that the railway needs to work better for passengers and the communities it serves and in which it operates. It is in that spirit that I will address a number of amendments.
I support new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It would place a duty on GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years. The rail network should be easily accessible for everyone, as most Members have said. There has been lots of progress in recent years on this issue, and I am pleased that most stations in my constituency are fully accessible, but that still leaves some stations that see hundreds of thousands of journeys each year out of reach for constituents with disabilities or using buggies.
Rye House is the only train station in Hoddesdon, a town of 20,000 people, but only one platform is step-free—the other is not. That means someone can have step-free access going into London, but not when they leave to go home. That means passengers in a wheelchair or with buggies having to get off at a different station, with longer journeys to get home.
It gets even worse at Theobalds Grove station, where the situation is even more difficult. No platform has step-free access, so there is no option for those with disabilities, such as those in a wheelchair, or families with buggies to use that station at all. Both stations would be ideal candidates for accessibility improvements, which should be a key priority for Great British Rail.
Since my election, I have campaigned hard on traffic delays and roadworks, and they do not occur in isolation from other modes of transport, particularly the rail network. I support new clause 29, which would direct Great British Rail to co-ordinate with transport authorities to minimise disruption. We need a joined-up and a common-sense approach. When works are planned on a line, we do not also need utility companies coming along to dig up the high street. It seems that once one element causes a bit of disruption, the other goes out of its way to create more disruption at the same time. We need organisations to have a joined-up and common-sense approach.
Level crossings can have massive knock-on effects for my constituents, particularly those who live in the villages. In my constituency, a track runs through the villages of Stanstead Abbotts and St Margarets—right through the middle. If the crossing is down for too long or a defect causes it not to reopen, an entire village is cut off from basic services. The level-crossings strategy proposed in amendment 65 would enable us to look at the consequences of things going wrong in that way, which would hopefully reduce disruption for my constituents.
In the case of any public body, value for the taxpayer should be considered above all else, so I support the requirement for Great British Railways to take steps to keep costs as low as possible. Rail services should also respond to changing needs. We have seen thousands of homes built in the last few years, creating more strain on our rail services. Thousands have been built near Cheshunt, the busiest station in my constituency, and more passengers are using it now than before the pandemic.
New clause 40 would ensure that services respond to population changes. Within the national planning policy framework, the Government are trying to bulldoze our green belt and make it easier to obtain planning permission near stations. I fundamentally disagree with that, and it makes new clause 40 even more important. The Government should support it.
New clause 37 is intended to ensure that the trains on which local communities rely run more frequently. The standard of communication from the railway network, the rail companies and my nationalised local rail service is appalling. If people turn up at the station and there are problems on the line, there are no staff around to talk to. No one is communicating with the passengers. They are left at the station to wait for another service, if and when it turns up.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point about the importance of building near railway stations. My experience, and that of many other Members along the length of the Elizabeth line, is that it is generating a huge amount of economic growth, which is very significant in our communities. It is also reusing a great deal of brownfield land, and I hope that would also benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the hon. Member for supporting the point I was making. The Elizabeth line was a new line with new trains going along it, but currently, planning applications are submitted and the response is: “This development is next to a railway station. We will grant the planning permission.” There are no new services. There are no extra trains. The only consequences for the line are the thousands of houses that are built near it. If my constituency were served by HS2 or we were getting a new train, that would be a completely different matter, but when capacity is being added to existing services and when that planning process is taking place, there is nothing to say that there must be more trains and a more frequent service, and the trains have to be longer during the rush hour to deal with the extra housing.
We need to look at how communication with rail users can be improved and at how this nationalised rail service will work, because, as I have said, the service in my area was one of the first to be nationalised and my constituents have seen no benefit at all.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others.
Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry.
But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.
I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership.
Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.
John McDonnell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did over the years to develop the policies that this legislation is largely based on. On the issue of trade union negotiations, we have advocated for sectoral collective bargaining in this sector, as in others, for quite a while. Why? Because it gives a voice to the workers themselves and brings about stability on issues such as employment and long-term investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one of the building blocks for the new system we are creating?
Andy McDonald
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, and I fully acknowledge his point. That is exactly how we are going to build a sustainable railway that will serve our communities and be responsive to reasonable requests from its workforce.
I have tabled new clause 26 and amendment 64, on the transfer of employees to GBR. The original vision of reform was for a railway with a single directing mind, but there is a strong case for having a single employer too. The legislation should make it clear that employees transferring from Network Rail, DfT Operator operators and former franchises will move into a coherent organisation, with full TUPE protections and clear employment rights. I also encourage the Government to move towards a formal framework for sectoral collective bargaining across the rail industry. Public ownership should create the conditions for partnership, workforce voice and stable industrial relations.
I have also tabled new clause 27, on pension schemes. It is remarkable that legislation transferring the railway back into public ownership contains weaker statutory pension protections than the legislation used to privatise it. The Railways Act 1993 included detailed provisions protecting pension rights, and workers joining GBR deserve the same certainty. Every railway employee should have a statutory right to participate in the railway pension scheme on protected terms.
I also support amendments to preserve schedule 17. We all remember the overwhelming public opposition to the proposals to close ticket offices, and schedule 17 provides an important mechanism for consultation and accountability when significant service changes are proposed. Those protections should not be casually swept aside.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would secure GBR in the public sector for the future. I also support amendment 35, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the wider principle of insourcing. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill creates an opportunity for the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation. The railway should not rely on fragmented contracting models that create insecurity and limit progression. Bringing contracted workers directly into GBR would strengthen workforce planning, improve standards and help to fulfil Labour’s commitment to treat railway staff as an asset rather than a cost.
This Bill is a historic opportunity. Public ownership can deliver a better railway for passengers, but it must also deliver a better railway for the people who run it every day. By strengthening protections for employment, trade union recognition, pensions and insourcing, we can ensure that Great British Railways is built on the foundations of fairness as well as efficiency.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak as we embark on the Government’s back to the future nationalisation plan. I will be speaking to new clause 35 and amendments 68 and 69, tabled in my name. Together, they are designed to ensure that Ministers and Great British Railways treat Ely junction as the nationally significant bottleneck it is, and that they make the progress that passengers, freight operators and local communities are entitled to expect.
It is important to set out the context in which my amendments sit. Rail services to North West Norfolk are not good enough. There are too many late trains, cancellations and engineering weekend closures. Those unreliable rail services put people off travelling and have a damaging effect on the local economy, particularly the visitor economy. My constituents deserve better, and improvements to Ely Junction would help deliver that.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being able to speak so early in this debate. I wish to focus on Government amendment 92, amendment 166 on devolution, which stands in my name, and the Transport Committee amendments on disability access. At the outset, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this issue.
Public ownership as a means to the end of improving passenger services has always implicitly been at the heart of this Bill, and Government amendment 92 makes that intent explicit. I warmly welcome its presence on the amendment paper. I hope the House will forgive a few words on the origins of this amendment. As the Minister said, a drafting issue was identified. In essence, although the requirement for public ownership was contained in other legislation, it was contingent on the circumstances of transition and on definitions set out in secondary legislation.
I am sure that Members across the House will agree that, whatever their views on the merits of particular ownership models, such an important decision as public ownership or privatisation of the railways should be taken only by the majority consent of the whole House, and that is exactly what the amendment will achieve, safeguarding Great British Railways from the spectre of privatisation through the back door. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State the noble Lord Hendy and the Bill team for their constructive engagement on this issue.
I am optimistic about the Bill’s devolution provisions and I hope that under them Birmingham and the west midlands can enjoy some of the improvements that passengers in London and Liverpool already benefit from. Great things were done in the past through the old section 20 agreements under the Transport Act 1968, not least the creation of the cross-city line which runs through my constituency, but such agreements proved impossible under the fragmented post-privatisation railway. I hope section 5 proves to be a worthy successor to Barbara Castle’s section 20.
In the west midlands, we have a particular issue. We have a well-established devolved body, the West Midlands Railway Executive, which covers counties beyond the combined authority’s boundaries, such as Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Clause 5, as it stands, specifies that devolution agreements will cover services in the area of a combined authority. It is important that such devolution agreements reflect the natural railway geographies of those areas, so I hope that reassurance can be given from the Government Front Bench.
Several amendments would take forward the Select Committee’s recommendations on disability access. We can judge our transport services on the ability of all passengers to use them and the Bill contains some welcome provisions. Clause 18 states that GBR must “in particular” advance the interests of disabled people. I believe this is the first time any such commitment requirement has been set out in railway legislation. GBR will be subject to the public sector equality duty, but new clause 39 would ensure that when the passengers’ council is constituted disabled people are represented on that body in accordance with the old commitment, “Nothing about us without us”. I hope Ministers will look carefully at that issue.
We heard from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), that they wished to advance a passenger growth target. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will know that that was the subject of some constructive disagreement on the Select Committee. Freight has historically been the poor relation on the railway network, in particular when it comes to pathing agreements. I fear that if a passenger growth target was in the Bill on the same basis and weight as the freight growth target, the advantages for the freight growth target in those decisions would be lost. That is an argument we heard in the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions from the Rail Freight Group.
Olly Glover
Without boring the House with a re-litigation of the debate we had in Committee, I will just say that the idea that passenger and freight are mutually exclusive and that there must be a choice between them is not correct. The Westbahn upgrade in Austria is a really good example of how investment has delivered an increase in both speed and frequency of passenger trains, and just as much freight, if not more, than before. We do not need to choose between them; we can have both if we so wish.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member describes the railway as it could be—and he tempts me to get on to Red Star Parcels, but that might be one for another day—but we must have regard to the railway as it is now and the fact is that the railway the Bill inherits sets up that binary choice all too often. I very much hope we can get more interaction between modes, as he describes.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said—I hope I do not misrepresent her—that the Bill carries forward, in a different form, an idea created by the previous Conservative Government, but I think that is really too short a horizon.
Wendy Morton
The point I was making was that the concept of Great British Railways and bringing track and train closer together came during our time in government, when Grant Shapps was the Transport Secretary and I was a rail Minister.
Laurence Turner
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is contradicted by the record and our own experience. She says that integration of track and train is an idea that came from that review, but we were advancing that idea for railway reform on the Labour Benches in 2011 and 2012. The Bill is the culmination of all that reform effort over many, many years.
Andy McDonald
What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.
Laurence Turner
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is, I say respectfully, wrong on this issue. When the Labour party first committed to the reintegration of track and train, under the then shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), I wrote the announcement—so I do bring some bearing to that question.
It has been a privilege over these years to ride on the footplate of this reform journey. The Bill will end the national buck-passing game of “Whose Line is it Anyway?”. Most importantly, it will establish a rail network that is run by and for the nation. I look forward to voting against amendments that would undo that important journey of reform.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It was my pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who led on the legislation for the Liberal Democrats, and behind whose expertise I have gamely hidden throughout. I believe that the Bill should be about passengers, which is why I strongly support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would establish a passengers’ charter.
New clause 1 would establish clear expectations around value for money, quality of service and adequate seating. It would require targets for reliability and a timetable for improvements to the passenger experience. Importantly, it would address issues that passengers in West Dorset have repeatedly raised with me: reliable highspeed wi-fi; comfortable seat design; dependable mobile connectivity; power outlets; luggage and bicycle storage; accessibility and clean toilets; onboard food and drink provision on journeys lasting more than two hours. Those are basic expectations of a modern railway in a modern country.
New clause 1 would also strengthen accessibility and extend the principles behind delay and repay to failure of onboard amenities, while moving towards automatic digital compensation. Importantly, NC1 sends a simple message to all: passengers come first. The same principle underpins new clause 43, which would place a duty on Great British Railways to provide food and drink on rail services lasting over an hour. For many passengers, particularly those travelling long distances from rural areas, access to refreshments is a necessity. If we want people to choose rail over car, we must think about the entire journey experience, and not simply whether the train arrives at the destination.
Passenger-focused reform must also mean affordability, which is why new clause 6 is important. At a time when many households continue to face pressure with the cost of living, the new clause would require plans for fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. It would extend standardised discounts for young people, provide discounted fares for veterans, establish a national tap-in, tap-out system, guarantee that passengers received the best-value fare regardless of how they purchase their tickets, introduce a national railcard, and enable open source access to ticketing systems and fare databases. The new clause would also require collaboration with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing. In rural areas such as West Dorset, where passengers often rely on both rail and bus services, joined-up ticketing could make a huge difference.
Linked to affordability and passenger growth is new clause 2, which would require a report into the merits of the rail-miles programme. We already reward loyalty in supermarkets and airmiles, yet regular rail passengers receive little recognition for their continued use of the network. A rail-mile programme would encourage repeat journeys, support passenger growth, and provide greater flexibility for commuters, students and working families. It would also help encourage modal shift away from private car use and towards public transport.
For young people, passenger-focused rail reform must also mean access to opportunity. That is why I tabled new clause 47, which would provide free rail travel to 16 to 18-years-olds in education, training or apprenticeships. If a young person cannot physically reach a college, apprenticeship or job opportunity, then every other intervention becomes less effective. New clause 47 would help to remove that barrier and support social mobility, economic participation and fairness.
The needs of rural communities are also reflected in new clause 40, which would place a duty on Great British Railways and the Secretary of State to ensure that rail services respond proportionately to both permanent and seasonal population growth. Coastal communities face the double challenge of being underfunded for their permanent population while simultaneously accommodating huge seasonal increases in demand. This new clause would require consideration of rolling stock services and infrastructure investment to ensure that communities are not left behind simply because population increases occur seasonally rather than permanently.
New clause 42 would require an assessment of the benefits of constructing a passing loop at Tisbury on the west of England line. This proposal is important not only to my constituents, but across the south-west.
Rachael Maskell
When we think about a nationalised rail service, we often debate the governance, which is vital. It was a real honour to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on putting together the blueprint that has set this train in motion. However, we must also remember the staff, and I therefore refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I raise a number of issues that could really impact their experience of working for our railways.
On 1 November last year, a horror unfolded on the east coast main line on a southbound LNER train. It was a chilling reminder of the incredible skills of rail staff in keeping us safe. It is our duty in this House to ensure that we keep the staff safe. My amendments 56 and 57 seek to do just that. Rail workers, whether on board, at stations or in our ticket offices, face an unacceptable level of violence and abuse. The industry recognises this, and how changes in working practices such as driver-only operation and lone working increase risk, and supports the changes I am proposing. Amendments 56 and 57 would extend GBR’s function to include an assurance for the safety of all rail workers, including from assaults. They would also secure safe staffing levels to achieve that aim.
Let me provide some examples. One rail worker was physically assaulted after trying to prevent a member of the public from climbing on to the train tracks, with trains due into the station imminently. Another rail worker had a hot drink thrown over them after charging an excess for an invalid ticket. Another was punched when they asked to see a ticket, resulting not only in him losing a tooth and requiring extensive dental treatment, but in the long tail of a mental health impact that ended in him leaving the service. Others have been threatened with knives. The level of violence is on the rise, with the British Transport police’s latest figures showing a 24% increase in violence against rail workers compared with the previous year. It is staggering.
I have raised this in Parliament many times. We need strong legal protections for public transport workers against assault at work, mirroring new provisions the Government have introduced for retail workers via the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and previously for emergency workers. Transport workers need equally strong protections.
This is a devolved matter, and I understand that the RMT has made significant progress in Scotland, with the Scottish Government committing to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker, not least as many have an enforceable element to their role. Once that legislation is enforced, it will create two tiers of legal protections where rail workers in Scotland, including those working on GBR cross-border services, are afforded strong legal protections, while those working on GBR services in England and Wales are not. It is really important that we move to a single system to protect staff from assault. The Minister has been very helpful in engaging with me on this, and I hope that we can make real progress so that the safety of our staff who serve us day and night is put first. I appreciate that we have CCTV, bodycams and the British Transport police, but we need safe staffing levels and consultation on any changes.
On the wider issue of safe staffing, it is really important that we strengthen passengers’ right to be consulted on changes to staffing levels. Amendment 58 seeks to achieve that. This issue is particularly important for disabled people too. The passenger watchdog has consistently shown that properly staffed trains and stations are not only important for passenger safety, security and accessibility, but safer for staff. Removing guards from trains and cutting staff from platforms, gatelines or ticket offices should be subject to consultation before any decisions are made.
Finally, I have tabled an amendment on open access operators. If they fold, we need to ensure that a process or mechanism is in place whereby staff can be TUPE-ed across—or the equivalent—into GBR, so that they are not left without a job. We need to retain their skills and experience and ensure that they continue to be employed on our national rail service as we move forward.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 17 and amendment 46, both of which stand in my name. I want to focus my remarks on a very simple principle. If Parliament is creating Great British Railways—we can argue away about any timeline—and we are concentrating more responsibility and decision making within a single national body, it is only right that there is appropriate accountability and local democratic oversight alongside it. As the Bill stands, it falls short in this regard.
New clause 17 does not seek to prevent decisions being made or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures that where decisions relating to railway services or infrastructure have a significant impact on local communities and economies, Members of this House—elected to represent those communities—are consulted. Surely that it was local democracy and accountability is all about.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. My constituents are utterly shocked by ticket prices. If they wanted to travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent by train today, it would cost a minimum of £160. We need local democracy and decision making, because these prices are outrageous.
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have found of late that, far from being a lot cheaper, as is often lauded, some of the ticket prices to Birmingham are absolutely eye-watering. I call on the Government to take a serious look at that. Rather than just saying, “Fares are all cheaper”, the Government must look right across the board, because some of them are far from affordable. That is also why I support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about a railcard for our veterans, which must be delivered.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) demonstrated, Members of Parliament are often the first port of call for constituents when problems arise with rail services or ticketing, or when communities are campaigning for investment. Whether it is constituents, businesses, community groups or local campaigners, they rightly expect their MP to be their voice and champion.
Local knowledge matters. Surely those who are elected to represent our communities should have a role in the decisions that affect them. I know from my own constituency just how important that can be. As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned for the restoration of a railway station in Aldridge—I see he is smiling. I make no apology for championing that case, and I will not be giving up any time soon. Members will have heard me raise this time and again for very good reason, because for too long communities like mine have been left behind by the railways. We hear talk of new passenger services such as Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway running through our village without stopping—that would be a huge missed opportunity. If we are serious about unlocking the economic growth that the Black Country so desperately needs, connectivity is key.
Throughout the debate, I have been interested by the contributions about the importance of putting passengers at the heart of our railway system. Of course, I agree with that, but surely it cannot be right that decisions with significant local impacts could be taken without speaking to the very Members elected to represent those communities. If we are to have Great British Railways, we should also have great British accountability. This is not an argument against the Government’s chosen direction, but greater centralisation must be accompanied by greater accountability. That seems a reasonable proposition, and one that I genuinely think Members right across the House would be able to support.
On accountability, amendment 46 would ensure that directions issued to Great British Railways are shared with the Transport Committee. That, again, is entirely sensible, because just as local communities deserve to have a voice through their Members of Parliament, Parliament itself should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and if Ministers are to have significant powers over Great British Railways, surely it is right that the House and its Select Committees can see how those powers are being exercised.
Ultimately, both my amendment and new clause are about striking the right balance between central direction and democratic accountability. Local communities deserve to have their voices heard, and Parliament should be able to exercise proper scrutiny. While I shall not press them to a vote, I really hope that the Minister will reflect on that, give the proposals serious consideration and respond to them when he wraps up the debate.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill. It is fantastic that the vast majority of residents—passengers—in the east of England are travelling on trains in public ownership. This is the next piece of the jigsaw.
I note that the amendment paper appears to be longer than the Bill, so as somebody who has contributed to that, I will turn to some of my amendments. New clause 20 is a simple amendment on promoting integration between trains and everything else—buses, coaches, trams, walking and cycling. I agree that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents that, but I feel there should be something to actively encourage it.
We will all have been at a station when the mainline train has been delayed and, helpfully, the connecting train has been held back for a little time. However, and interestingly, I recently asked somebody at the Transport Committee who ran a bus company whether he had ever come across a situation where the train had been held because his bus had been delayed, and the answer was absolutely not—and vice versa. In fact, there are lots of incentives to stop that happening within the transport system as a whole—after all, a bus company can get fined for having delayed buses. That is why we need something in the Bill that promotes active integration.
Amendments 39 to 42 are about devolution and consultation. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State and GBR will consult with Scottish and Welsh Ministers. By contrast, elsewhere they will consult with mayoral strategic authorities. The difference is that in one place they are consulting with a person, and in the other they are consulting with an organisation. I strongly believe that consultation should take place with the mayor as the person with that democratic mandate to enable us to have stronger, quicker decision making and ensure that what is happening is clear.
I turn to new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on the customer loyalty programme. I cannot say that I agree with the Secretary of State having to lay a report on that within a year—she probably has better things to do. However, the concept of a customer loyalty programme is something I have long called for, and I have had constructive discussions with the Minister on that. Encouraging passengers and would-be passengers to build a loyalty to our railways matters greatly. As has been said, that happens with air miles and with Tesco Clubcard. We could get all kinds of different benefits for passengers, and GBR could use such a programme to try to flex demand.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents.
I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe.
I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced.
Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action.
I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability.
Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound
“to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”.
We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers.
I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.
Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.
This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.
I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.
My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.
The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.
For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.
Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping us on time and on track—much better than some of the trains I have travelled on.
I will speak in favour of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). When the Government came into office with a promise to do something about the shocking state of our trains, people back in Yeovil all said, “Finally—it’s about time”, which happens also to be what they say if the train eventually shows up. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, but it needs to go further if we are to address the problems with rail travel in Somerset.
Luckily enough, us pesky Liberal Democrats have some ideas that the Government can support today. Our passenger charter and our amendments would provide a range of guarantees that would address the challenges that people in Yeovil face when trying to get a train. They would back up those guarantees with a framework for compensation for failures to comply with the charter, such as delay repay. Our charter’s guarantee about value for money would mean that apprentices such as Gregg would not be priced out of rail travel. He worked out that currently it would cost him £5,200 for an annual train ticket to Exeter—a quarter of his salary—instead of £1,750 if he lift-shares with a friend. We can see why people do not use the trains at the moment.
Our charter guarantee of proper seating for any single part of a rail journey longer than 30 minutes will mean that something finally has to be done about the overcrowding on trains from Yeovil junction, which makes travel for people like Colin a nightmare, even when they get off their train and try to get the next one. Only the other day, I was chatting to a disabled passenger on the overcrowded train to London, and she told me that if she wants a seat, she has to fork out lots more money for first-class tickets to have the peace of mind that she will not have to stand. Our charter calls for proper services, including good wi-fi, clean toilets, and catering—and a few plugs would help. It would also mean that long journeys should not be an uncomfortable nightmare.
The charter guarantee on the reliability of services, and amendment 55’s requirements for better links between rail travel and onward transport, such as buses or active travel, will mean that people like Janine will be able to use Yeovil junction more reliably. At the minute, a lack of bus services means that when trains are late, people miss the bus and are forced to wait ages to get home, or they have to fork out for a pricey taxi. Hopefully, we will also get a safe active travel route to Yeovil junction.
Finally, our charter’s guarantee relates to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, the areas around stations and replacement services. It will force more action to support disabled passengers in rural areas because this is a real issue in Yeovil. Staff shortages and a lack of proper training have seen both Jack, a wheelchair user, and Kathy, who is visually impaired, suffer accidents at Yeovil Pen Mill. As Kathy points out, at the moment things are only getting worse, with staff retiring after years of service and GWR not hiring replacements beforehand. Jack even described to me how she was made to feel responsible for her accident, because she needed to use a ramp. That is not good enough and not acceptable at all.
Our charter makes it clear as day that accessibility is the responsibility of Great British Railways, not passengers. I hope the Government will listen and take on board our ideas, because we need this Bill to succeed if we are to get the trains working for people in Yeovil again.
Matt Rodda
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to address some of the issues raised by new clause 22 and other new clauses in relation to disabled people. If I could just make it clear for the sake of the record, I did not mean to sign new clause 22 and, in fact, I have asked the office to remove my name from that clause, although it will not appear in the paperwork until tomorrow.
I want to offer my wholehearted support for the Bill and to thank the Minister and, indeed, his predecessor as shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who I had the pleasure of working with in opposition. This important Bill will bring track and train together and deliver enormous benefits for local residents, not least in constituencies such as Reading Central, where we have a significant number of commuters, but also a lot of economic growth generated by rail investment. It is a shame that I was not able to discuss that further with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) after his slight misunderstanding of my point on this matter. It is important to consider the benefits of rail in terms of economic growth to the country. While the Elizabeth line cost about £18 billion, in the first three years it operated—it has now operated for several years—£42 billion of economic growth was generated by that wise investment. It was backed by both main parties and, I would hope, other smaller parties as well. I hope that we can all come together to support that.
I should declare a bit of an interest in that not only do I represent a town that has seen huge growth thanks to rail investment, but I was involved in the Paddington rail crash and was lucky to survive it. I am a regular commuter, and I also thank the RMT and ASLEF for supporting my general election campaigns in the past.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name.
My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics.
I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency.
A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies.
New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time.
New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?
Dr Spencer
I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced.
New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens.
New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport.
That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
As I made clear on Second Reading, this crucial Bill is about undoing the immeasurable damage done to our rail network, to passenger confidence and to economic prosperity after decades of privatisation and woeful mismanagement.
I will focus on rail devolution. I commend the Transport Committee on its incisive report on the topic, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for the amendments drafted in her name and her clear desire for us to get the most out of this legislation. I know how much is riding on the Bill for our regional mayors, strategic authorities and, most importantly, the passengers they serve. My appeal today is to ensure that the Bill supports the Government’s devolution journey.
Transport planning is a crucial competence of our elected mayors, and where mayoral strategic authorities are truly emboldened, entire city regions, local transport networks and whole communities are strengthened as a result. We must do as much as possible to support connections that improve economic density and therefore boost growth. Our achievements in Greater Manchester are a testament to that, and the absorption of rail into the Bee Network is the critical next step in delivering on the priorities of local people.
I welcome Government amendment 136, which will enable local bodies to enter into certain arrangements with the Secretary of State, but concerns remain that it may not reflect the full capabilities of our mayoral authorities. I would welcome any assurances from the Minister that this provision will not be narrower than existing provisions set out in the Railways Act 2005. Essentially, can the Minister confirm that the amendment supports meaningful partnership with our elected combined authority mayors? As the Bill stands, engagement between Great British Rail and our mayoral authorities could be predicated on good will among officials negotiating on their behalf, with little codified in the way of a formal, statutory partnership between the two.
Mayoral strategic authorities and mayors themselves are now integral to the delivery of housing policy, urban planning and regional economic development. For them to do that role without much of a stake in local rail networks is to proceed with one arm tied behind their backs. Authorities need to be sufficiently empowered in relation to Great British Railways to get on and demonstrate that they deserve greater scope to plan transport alongside other policy areas—for example, by strategically aligning rail corridors and house building. Great British Rail cannot inhibit this kind of common-sense approach in the way that Network Rail sometimes has in the past. Great British Rail and our local rail networks must work in lockstep with spatial plans and the changes we see across our communities. That is the only way we can ensure benefits for peripheral towns as much as for the hearts of our city centres.
We also need to think about the future. We can never say with certainty how committed a future Government may be to devolution, so the Bill must enshrine a robust partnership duty to ensure that mayoral authorities have a decisive role in commissioning services, shaping specifications and influencing fares and performance outcomes. We cannot simply rely on a duty to consult.
Local transport plans are critical, too. As the Bill stands, Great British Rail should “have regard to” local transport plans—forward-looking, multi-year plans developed by local transport authorities, each with a statutory basis, that promote safe, integrated, reliable and sustainable local transport policy. Simply having regard to them could lead to rail policy being delivered entirely by Great British Rail in a silo and in isolation from wider place-based policy.
I appreciate that we are planning a national rail network, but that work must not run roughshod over local economic and transport priorities. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to consider revising the language in clause 16 from “have regard to” to “act in accordance with”. I know that, in their response to the Transport Committee’s report on this matter, the Government were clear in their view that the current language is sufficient, but I am keen to stress that this Bill is about not just the next few years but the next few decades. We need to set an irreversible course for sustained devolution, and doing so means GBR not just regarding the plans, but fully aligning with them. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that.
I offer my full support to this crucial legislation, and I thank the Government for their continued engagement. Our regional leaders have an invaluable contribution to make in engaging with GBR; for that to be realised, we need to move beyond notions of consultation and towards equal and productive partnerships between mayoral strategic authorities and our rail network’s new guiding mind. That means making train travel and other forms of public transport better for passengers across the country, irrespective of where that may be, and ultimately driving economic growth. This ambition must be what guides us going forward, and that is how passengers nationwide will come to judge what we are doing here today.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clauses 10, 12 and 13, tabled in my name. Before I start, may I sincerely thank the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago? The dialogue was constructive and welcomed, and I really hope that other Ministers take a leaf out of his book and reach across the Floor to have dialogue when moving forward with legislation.
New clause 10 would devolve rail powers in Wales to the Welsh Government and, crucially, devolve the funding that goes along with them. The current system in which one Government control trains and another Government control the track simply does not work for Wales. It prevents Wales from creating its own integrated network and planning and delivering the rail system it needs. If we are serious about improving rail for the people of Wales, we must address this fundamental issue through the full devolution of rail infrastructure, which the people of Wales support. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government were elected on a commitment to devolve rail, as is already the case in Scotland. Devolution would finally unlock the investment Wales has been denied and end the injustice of Welsh taxpayers funding England-only projects such as HS2, Oxford-Cambridge—which is nowhere near Wales—and Northern Powerhouse Rail, which again is nowhere near Wales. HS2 alone deprives Wales of nearly £6 billion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
To ensure I get all colleagues in, I am introducing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Navendu Mishra
I thank all railway staff at stations across Stockport, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies. I also declare an interest—trade unions have made donations to my constituency Labour party.
The British Transport Police recorded a 5% increase in crime in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, including a rise in violence and sexual offences, leading to claims of an “epidemic of violence”. It is facing a funding shortfall of £8.5 million this financial year, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we in this House have a duty to keep passengers and staff safe. As such, I urge the Government to ensure that proper, adequate funding is allocated to the BTP.
I also echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about outsourcing. Outsourcing is embedding systemic racism in parts of the railway network where outsourced workers are disproportionately from ethnic minority backgrounds. As I said earlier in an intervention, ethnic minority workers represent 25% of the directly employed train operating company workforce, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers.
The outsourcing model is driven by employers taking on workers on precarious contracts and on poor terms and conditions, such as inadequate sick pay and pensions when compared with directly employed workers. Outsourced workers typically have no travel facilities, but many in the House will be aware that a chief executive of a private train company has excellent terms and conditions, benefits and travel facilities. GBR should tackle these outsourced contracts and the poor terms and conditions that people are on. Everyone deserves fair pay and treatment, as well as dignity at work.
Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.
Reddish South train station in my constituency has one train a week. That is not a joke. It is absolutely ridiculous. Proper passenger services must be restored at Reddish South train station. I pay tribute to the Friends of Reddish South Station, who do such important work in my patch. In the last reporting period, only 102 passengers used that train station in an entire year. We need to ensure that as we move on with modernising our railway system, Reddish South is not left behind and train stations have proper services.
I did support new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). It has now been withdrawn, but it would have required GBR to establish a department to look at options to increase services to underserved places. I invite the Minister to visit Reddish South. Lord Hendy made a visit to my constituency last year, but it was at short notice and he did not have a chance to go to Reddish South. I invite the Minister and Lord Hendy to come to my constituency specifically to meet the Friends of Reddish South.
I will make a quick point on disabled access. The Access for All scheme is a good scheme, but it is far too slow. Nathaniel Yates, a constituent of mine, has done so much work over the years to improve disabled access for all, but accessibility at train stations in the north is poor, with fewer than half of all stations having step-free access. We need to ensure that more people are not excluded from our railways, such as those with mobility issues, underlying health conditions or heavy luggage. I support amendments 29 and 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would protect and promote the rights of disabled passengers.
I end on the point that since privatisation, rolling stock companies have been rinsing the taxpayer. Those companies should be brought in house, and Great British Railways should create its own rolling stock procurement team to stop taxpayers being taken advantage of.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When I was growing up, the state of the railways, alongside the weather, was a general complaint that united most people. Thankfully, the days of the cardboard British Rail sandwich are long gone, but I regret to say that general dissatisfaction with the railway experience in my part of the world remains. That is why I welcomed the Railways Bill and the creation of Great British Railways, and I was optimistic about the renationalisation of South Western Railway, which covers my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I regret that the reliability of that service and the experience of my constituents is, if anything, worse than a year ago. I now no longer tell my family to collect me at the scheduled arrival time, but call ahead, so regular are the delays.
James, a constituent who has travelled from Wareham to London for 50 years, told me that the service has never been so poor and is not a pleasant experience. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), which would create a passenger charter. It should not be too much to ask for wi-fi that works, access to a drink or snack on a long journey, clean toilets and a guaranteed seat. Those with disabilities, bikes and prams should be able to get on and off a train and be able to put their luggage or equipment on board.
I also support new clause 6 and in particular its provision relating to fares for children. That issue was raised by students of Purbeck school when I visited last year. More than half do not stay on for sixth form, accessing colleges in Poole, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Brockenhurst. We all consider children to be children until they are 18, but not the rail companies, to whom childhood stops at 15. I presume that dates back to when we left school at 16, but we are more civilised now, and it is outrageous that a 16-year-old is considered an adult. Regardless of what happens to the new clause, please will the Government fix that?
My new clause 11 is about reducing bike thefts linked to the railways. Until February this year, bike thefts were not investigated where the bike had been left for more than two hours. That is a ridiculous position, bearing in mind that most people are going to school, out for the day or to work, and so staying away for more than two hours. The change that now allows bike thefts caught on CCTV to be investigated is great, but small rural stations such as mine at Holton Heath do not have any CCTV, so we should be preventing the bike thefts in the first place. More than 4,000 bikes were stolen from railway stations in 2024, so a modest requirement for secure cycle storage alongside car parking, or on platforms of smaller stations, seems only reasonable. I asked South Western Railway to do that voluntarily, but it refused, so my only option was to put my name to a new clause that would give passengers security and peace of mind but also reduce the need for people to drive to stations, thus supporting the railway’s role in carbon reduction.
There is an opportunity to take the railway to more people, which is why I support amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) but has, I believe, now been withdrawn. In Dorset we have a huge opportunity to revolutionise rail use through Dorset Metro, which could increase train frequency across the local area from Wareham to Christchurch and create potential new stations or halts to take the strain from the heavily congested roads. In areas where railways cannot be restored because of housing developments, the “rails to trails” programme proposed in new clause 5 provides a great opportunity. The fantastic Castleman Trailway runs through the heart of my constituency, but at Corfe Mullen it stops abruptly as it reaches the A31, and there is a missed opportunity to connect those on both sides of the community.
If we are going to let the train take the strain, it must be reliable, affordable and safe. My constituent Adam says that as things stand, he is considering moving elsewhere because travel is such a problem. While the Bill constitutes a good step, I am not sure that we can currently call this the “Great” British Railway, and I hope that the Minister will do better and accept more of the amendments to allow it to be great again.
Cat Eccles
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.
Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of railway accessibility. I wish to put on record, as I have been advised to by the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, that my name has been mistakenly added to new clauses 22, 59, 60, 61 and 62, but has correctly been added to new clause 23, which concerns that issue of railway accessibility.
Cat Eccles
The Government are right to simplify retail under a unified Great British Rail offer, but the offer must be available to everyone, not just those who can navigate digital platforms. Accessibility must be designed into the system from the start, not added as an afterthought. I hope that the Minister can commit himself to ensuring that every fare and discount available online will also be available through ticket offices and assisted channels, so that no one is excluded.
Amendments 51 and 52, also in my name, are intended to confirm the existing process whereby ticket office hours and staffing levels are regulated and any proposed changes are subject to consultation overseen by the passenger watchdog. The amendments would formalise that by including it in the Bill, ensuring that the current process is retained by Great British Rail.
The last Government attempted to close about 1,000 ticket offices around the country. They were forced to U-turn after considerable opposition. In Stourbridge—alongside the RMT and George the station cat—I ran the biggest campaign in the country to save ticket offices. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of saving them because they provide such a vital service to communities. They were saved owing to schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, whereby ticket offices can be closed only subject to consultation. During the consultation process a few years ago, it became clear that the public would not tolerate any closures. While this Government would not be so short-sighted as to try to strip communities of these important ticket offices, we must future-proof the legislation, and the amendments are consistent with the Government’s commitment to strengthen the passenger watchdog and passengers’ voices under GBR. I hope the Minister can assure the House that GBR will retain the current process, ensuring that there is consultation with rail users before any changes are made to opening hours or any closures of ticket offices are proposed.
I had planned to speak in favour of new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, which I believe has now been withdrawn. It would have given us the opportunity to reopen closed lines and restore connections to ensure that no community is left behind. In my constituency, the proposed Stourbridge Dasher service to Brierley Hill demonstrates exactly what can be achieved by making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have. Put forward by local light rail company Pre Metro, it would link Stourbridge and Brierley Hill along a corridor currently plagued by heavy traffic congestion and very few viable road improvement options, and bring existing freight track back into use for passenger services, as it would have been before the Beeching cuts. Up and down the country, there are hundreds of similar examples of where existing lines could be used to restore connections and ensure that communities are no longer held back by poor connectivity.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
We in this place all recognise the transformative role that railways can play in creating better-connected places and driving the economic growth that our communities and country need, yet that potential remains largely unrealised in some counties. Wiltshire has an extensive network of existing railway lines, but they remain primarily geared towards ferrying passengers and freight across the county, rather than providing a service on which residents can rely for local commuting, business and leisure travel.
Thanks to tireless local campaigning, Melksham saw a significant uplift in its rail service back in 2013, but with an average of just one train every two hours, the service remains too intermittent to meet the needs of a town experiencing rapid population growth. Meanwhile, a 20-mile station-less stretch of line runs between Westbury and Pewsey. It passes within three miles of Devizes, but there is no railway access for over 30,000 people living in the heart of Wiltshire, which is holding back the area’s economy. The Bill acknowledges the importance of local and regional rail, and requires GBR to align decisions with local transport strategies, but making mayoral strategic authorities the sole vehicle for this new co-operation leaves some 60% of England’s population not yet covered and without the tools to harness rail’s potential.
If the Government are committed to sustainable housing growth, town centre regeneration, access to jobs, education and decarbonisation, the Bill must go much further in enabling local rail. Metroisation of our railways is not just for large cities; counties such as Cornwall and Northumberland are already demonstrating how more frequent and reliable rail can transform rural economies. The Government need to ensure that market towns such as Melksham and Devizes are not left behind in economic development and can benefit from the rail network.
The creation of GBR must also be accompanied by a brand-new passenger charter. If we want more passengers to choose rail over road, we must tackle issues such as overpriced tickets and overcrowded carriages with poor wi-fi and little or no catering. I urge the Government to accept new clauses 1 and 58, and set a new bar for value for money, accessibility and passenger comfort in our new Great British Railways.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Ministers both here and in the other place for their hard work and engagement on this important Bill. I will focus my comments in favour of new clause 16.
Great British Railways cannot come soon enough for my constituency of Shrewsbury. Under privatisation, our geography has penalised us, as we sit on the edge of everyone’s maps between regional operators serving either Wales or Birmingham, leaving us under-invested and underserved. As Members may recall—I have mentioned it quite a few times—Shropshire remains the only county without a direct train to London. The value of such a direct service is not just the obvious economic boost for jobs, education and tourism, or the improved accessibility of avoiding step-heavy connections, but the important investment in infrastructure that inter-city services could unlock at our station. We need more frequent and reliable regional services, with much more capacity to cope with the vast demand for services for a county town of 70,000 residents. For example, our local university campus closed last year, and students now have to travel beyond Shrewsbury to access education, training and employment.
For these reasons, I am pleased to put my name in support of five amendments, including new clause 16, which calls for the reopening of services to underserved areas. This new clause calls for GBR to establish a department for the purpose of identifying areas underserved and unserved by railway services, and to assess passenger and community needs for adding services, routes or stations where they are missing. It is crucial that the full opportunities of this new integrated, nationalised railway are felt across the whole country by improving service levels in underserved and often rural areas such as Shropshire, not just adding increased frequency for already well-served cities. Just last month, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I stood in this very place to present a petition signed by over 10,000 fare-paying passengers asking this Government to recognise the demand for a direct train service at Shrewsbury and to approve extra routes to London.
As we stand together on the cusp of nationalising our rail system, we must ensure that the mantra of “people before profit” becomes a reality in places such as Shrewsbury. Where investment has been lacking, let us take this opportunity to rebuild; where services have withered away, let us deliver for our communities; and where towns have been left behind, let us reconnect them. In short, let us show in deeds, not words, how Great British Railways will deliver more services for more places such as Shrewsbury.
Monica Harding
I rise in support of new clause 1, on the passengers’ charter, new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and my own new clause 60, which addresses reliability, accessibility and refurbishment.
All seven of my railway stations in Esher and Walton are under the stewardship of South Western Railway, making our constituency one of the first to experience the transition to public ownership, and there are significant reliability challenges. The latest performance figures show that, in March, 3% of all services were cancelled and only 65% of services arrived on time, meaning more than one in three trains fail to arrive when passengers expected them to.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?
Monica Harding
They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1.
It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network.
That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe.
There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need.
All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Bill is a necessary and long-overdue step towards bringing our railways back into public ownership. Great British Railways represents a real opportunity to build a railway that works in the interests of passengers and staff, rather than profiteering companies and distant shareholders.
For railway workers, the transition to GBR must be an opportunity to strengthen good, secure and unionised jobs across the sector. Rail staff are the backbone of the network. Whether they work on trains, in stations, or on signalling, engineering or maintenance, they keep this country moving every single day.
I also want to commend the work of campaign groups such as We Own It, alongside the rails unions the RMT, the TSSA and ASLEF, for their long-standing commitment to the renationalisation of our railways. Working constructively with the trade unions will be vital if GBR is to succeed. A publicly owned railway must also be a railway built on a partnership with its workforce.
The transport unions have raised a number of concerns that the Government should address. Tens of thousands of rail workers still do not know exactly who their future employer will be under GBR, nor do they know what pension arrangements will apply. There are also real fears about potential job losses linked to the transition. Around 870 Network Rail staff are reportedly at risk of redundancy and are concerned at de-recognition of trade unions during the TUPE transfer from Network Rail into its wholly owned public subsidiary, Platform4. A fundamental principle of the transition from private to public ownership should be that every workplace within GBR recognises trade unions.
My now-withdrawn new clause largely spoke to Beeching. The Beeching cuts, now widely recognised as a significant failure, saw the closure of up to 2,363 stations and approximately 5,000 miles of track. It severed vital links for many communities, causing lasting damage to local economies. That is felt all too acutely in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, where we have a huge gap between Caersws and Machynlleth—the longest stretch of line without a station in the whole of Wales.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving an impassioned speech about areas that are underserved by rail connections. My constituency is one such areas—it does not have a single mainline station, despite being the largest constituency by land in Cornwall. Unfortunately, the North Cornwall railway was a victim of the Beeching cuts. Will the hon. Member ask the Minister how the Bill will help such areas to bring back vital rail links? There are initiatives such as Kernow Connect, which has the potential to connect my constituency at Launceston, but does the hon. Member agree that the Bill does not go far enough in that regard?
Steve Witherden
The hon. Member serves a similarly large and rural constituency to mine. Getting stations open in such areas is incredibly important, and I urge him to work closely with community groups, as I am sure he is already doing, so that what I am trying to do in mid and north Wales might also be done in Cornwall.
Great British Railways presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our railways and create a service that works for the public good rather than for private profit. Workers must not be sidelined; jobs, pensions and trade union rights must be protected; and passengers must see genuine improvements in affordability and reliability.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
This Bill represents a once-in-a-generation chance to create a simpler, more effective and more accountable railway. I am pleased that c2c, which serves my constituents in Thurrock, was one of the first operators to come under public ownership. I look forward to the reversal of 30 years of privatisation, which have seen fragmentation, outsourcing and a dangerous lack of investment in infrastructure. Nationalisation and the establishment of Great British Railways will allow us to protect the long-term future of our railways, putting passengers first, not profit.
When we commit to putting passengers first, however, that must mean all passengers. That is why I strongly support amendments 70 and 71, proposed by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Last year, the Transport Committee released a worrying report on access to public transport by disabled people. The Committee estimated that more than one third of disabled people were regularly avoiding travel because they believed it would be too complicated, too unsafe, or things would be too likely to go wrong.
The amendments would require a commitment from Great British Railways and a proposed passenger council not simply to consider the interests of disabled users, but to carry out their responsibilities in a way that actively promotes their interests. Accessibility must not be viewed through the same lens as customer service, where minor delays or engineering faults are considered irritating but, unfortunately, normal. Accessibility failures should be incredible rare, and failures to meet standards should be regarded as a serious infraction of people’s rights.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend is making some important points about railway accessibility, which is also an issue for my constituents, particularly at the railway stations in Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn. That is why I added my name to new clause 23, which would have introduced a strategy to ensure full railway accessibility across the country within the next 10 years. We have been waiting far too long for our railways to be accessible. We need action now.
Jen Craft
I completely agree. We have waited since the inception of the railways for them to be accessible. As anyone who, like me, is a bit of a rail geek and enjoys a trip on a stream train of a weekend will know, railways in the past were not designed with access for all in mind, and we can and must do better.
If a train station lift breaks overnight, wheelchair users who travel regularly on the train might find themselves in a position where they are unable to travel to work or school, visit family or get to their local hospital. That is not inconvenient; it is unacceptable. The lifts are currently out of service at Tilbury in my constituency, and the solution that is being offered is for people to travel on to the next stop, change trains, go round and come back. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. This sentiment is not reflected in the way we currently talk or think about service provision for disabled people. We urgently need a change of mindset, recognising that accessibility is a non-negotiable matter—it is the bare minimum.
At my local station in Grays, we have been waiting for operational lifts for years. Although c2c received a grant under the Access for All scheme, the lifts have been a categorical failure. As the fourth most used station in the east of England and a busy transport hub, it should have the proper infrastructure. The lifts were initially promised for late 2024, but they were not delivered until August 2025. They did not work—in fact, they have never worked. They frequently break down. Now, due to quite a lot of persistence from me, they are finally being torn out and replaced.
This has had a significant impact on my disabled constituents. One woman told me that she was trapped in a lift for 35 minutes and had to be removed by firefighters, while another told me that her husband is reluctant to use the station because he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and struggles with stairs. It is just such a shame that these brand-new lifts, which were promised under an access scheme, are out of order so very often.
I am very pleased that the Bill will bring Network Rail, which is responsible for providing, servicing and now replacing these lifts, into Great British Railways. It is absolutely right that the organisation becomes part of a unified, publicly owned body that is accountable to all the passengers who rely on it. I am hopeful that this added accountability will help to foster genuine progress on accessibility.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I wonder whether I could give the hon. Lady an update from my own constituency. A year on from South Western Railway’s nationalisation, its performance metrics continue to fall. My constituents commuting to Portsmouth or Fareham can expect that one in every three journeys will be late. It is not a good sign for the Government’s nationalisation plans, especially as GBR is now marking its own homework. The trains are dirty and overcrowded, and passengers are lucky if they can find wi-fi that works. That is the lesson we have learned from the Government’s nationalisation so far.
Jen Craft
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I find that quite unusual, as, having travelled on privatised trains for a number of years, I am very familiar with dirty, unreliable trains, and GBR will finally unite rail and the networks to enable them to turn those things around, ensuring a rail network that delivers for all who use it and puts people over profit, which is absolutely fantastic.
It is absolutely crucial that there is added accountability in a rail service. If amendments 70 and 71 are given proper consideration, we could really see a turning point in how disabled people who regularly use the rail network are viewed. We have to consistently get the basics right. We need lifts that work, ramps with railings and staff on hand to help people on and off the trains. We also need these things to be reliably available.
With Great British Railways, we also have the potential to use the power of procurement to ensure that trains are fully designed to meet the needs of all passengers, instead of being designed around one bloke with a briefcase travelling to and from the office, as they were in the past. In the modern world, so many different people use the train, and we have an opportunity to have a rail network that services all who use it.
With Great British Railways, we have the opportunity to go further still by being more innovative and forward thinking in our efforts to support disabled passengers. I would like to shout out Railscape, a business operating locally to me, which has been developing an interactive model that allows neurodiverse people in particular to look around the station ahead of time. When neurodiverse people are looking at getting into the workforce and travelling to work, a huge barrier is anxiety over how to navigate a rail station—where the ticket barriers are, where to buy a ticket and so on—and this model allows them to plan ahead of their visit and see where they are going. I hope that this is the sort of work that Great British Railways will encourage and incorporate, as it is a fantastic example of how important it is to actively promote the interests of disabled people.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I would like to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
For decades, my constituents have been dealing with the consequences of the failed experiment of the privatisation of our railways. This Bill begins to put that right. At its heart is the creation of Great British Railways—a single, publicly owned body focused not on shareholders, but on the people who use the railways day in, day out. Government amendment 92 will ensure that the benefits of nationalisation are felt by passengers for decades to come. It prevents future Ministers from undoing this progress and dragging our railways back into the chaos and fragmentation of the past.
My gramps was a train driver, and my amazing auntie Michelle—Michelle Nolan McSweeny—has dedicated her career to the railways, so for me this Bill is personal. I know the pride that hard-working railway workers take in what they do. They want to deliver a quality service for their passengers, but they have been failed by a system that puts profit above people. For too long, our railways have been broken up into pieces—pieces of track, trains and operation—all working under different initiatives. That fragmentation has made it harder to plan properly, invest and deliver the railways that passengers deserve.
A railway works best when it is treated as one. We need the people who run the trains, manage the infrastructure and make investment decisions all to be working together, not pulling in different directions. Every pound generated by our railways should be focused on improving our railway network and supporting development here in the UK. It should not flow out to private interests or be used to support railways elsewhere.
Under privatisation, some of the companies operating our rail services have been owned by overseas interests, including state-linked rail companies from other countries. That means that money from UK passengers has at times helped to support transport systems and priorities outside our own country. Our railways should be an asset that strengthens the UK economy. The fares that passengers pay and the value created by our network should help to fund better services, infrastructure and connections for communities in Britain.
We can see from across Europe that a more co-ordinated approach can deliver better infrastructure. Strong infrastructure is not just about trains; it is about jobs, housing, businesses and opportunity. We are beginning to see what a different approach can achieve. Last year, South Western Railway became the first railway company under public ownership. At the end of last month, Southern Rail followed. Public ownership operators are performing better on average on punctuality and cancellations compared with those still in private ownership. Avanti, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), has cut services and remains owned by the private companies FirstGroup and Trenitalia, which are owned by the Italian state railway.
Under public ownership, South Western Railway has accelerated its plans for new trains and improved driver training, increased capacity and more space on routes into London. It will also provide information and connections to local bus, ferry and transport services to join up the systems locally. Southern Rail’s new publicly owned operator has committed to practical improvements too, including giving passengers direct access. That is welcome, but we must make sure that those promises are properly challenged and scrutinised. Passengers need improvements that they can feel every day, including value-for-money tickets, reliable information, better customer service and better access. People also expect the basics, such as decent wi-fi and connectivity on their journey.
Those improvements matter locally. In Portsmouth North, for passengers using stations such as Hilsea and Cosham, the railway is not abstract; it is a part of everyday life. It is about getting to work, getting kids to school and college, and staying connected with communities. I look forward to working with Great British Railways to ensure that those stations have full accessibility, full safety and extended facilities.
The Bill is about bringing the railways back together and simplifying a system that has become too complex, fragmented and difficult to navigate. Amendment 92 secures this system into the future. I am proud to support the Government’s mission to keep Great British Railways in public ownership and ensure that the mistakes of privatisation are not repeated.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Railways are critical for many of my constituents, and I am pleased to speak to the Government’s amendments, particularly the measures that will ensure that nationalisation fully proceeds with no scope for future partial privatisation through the back door.
I welcome this Government’s focus on the railways, as frustratingly only part of my constituency is served by rail. The major towns of Renfrew, Erskine and Inchinnan are railway deserts right now, meaning that residents have to rely on the road network. Since privatisation in 1997, railway connections have felt more fragmented. As a regular traveller southward, I understand how important it is that the Bill will enable the system to work together, as integrated transportation is currently lacking.
The strategic planning that underlines this legislation means integrated track ownership infrastructure, and better management, service and procurement, so Great British Railways will increasingly pay off. I welcome the provisions to allow Scottish Ministers to contribute to the broader strategic planning of the railway system, and the new technical amendments for the transfer of staff under TUPE, which is essential for a smooth transition.
I am encouraged by the inclusion of rail freight in the Bill. In my constituency, Russell’s, a family-run business with a massive distribution depot in Hillington Park, already makes significant use of rail for freight distribution, and it is looking to recommission the existing railway track from Hillington and get it operational once again. I am keen to explore how I can support its aim to transport freight by rail all the way from Hillington to the centre of Europe.
Keir Mather
With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice.
I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution.
GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR.
On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned.
New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency.
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region.
On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.
I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors.
New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station.
On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for meeting me and Olivia from my office to try to find a way to implement the new clause. I also thank Simon Watkins, who is vice-chair of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who has repeatedly raised the new clause’s objective with me. The Minister said earlier that GBR will be “owned by the British people and run in their interests”; does he agree that when we talk about the British people we mean all the British people and that, when the Bill proceeds to the Lords, our representative there, the Rail Minister, would be wise to—
Keir Mather
I could not agree more strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He will know—we have discussed this—that under the council’s current arrangements, two members have lived experience of navigating the transport network with a disability. We fully expect that arrangement to continue. I applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend and those of all the members of the Transport Committee in holding the Government’s feet to the fire on this incredibly important issue.
On fares and ticketing, amendments 143 to 147, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), relate to discounted travel. Let me reaffirm the Government’s gratitude to those who have served our country and confirm again that there are no plans to withdraw any discount schemes. However, it is right to allow GBR to adapt its customer offer. In future, we may want a simplified offer for the entire armed forces community, rather than separating veterans and families. The amendments would inhibit that by freezing current railcards in statute.
Our willingness to take forward proactive measures to support veterans and their families can hopefully be seen in our embrace of the excellent proposal from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to improve the Remembrance Sunday offer for families. I thank her for her efforts in making that a reality.
On amendments 149 and 165, on freight access, allow me to reassure Members that clause 72 cannot be used to nationalise freight terminals. It cannot be used to bring any other infrastructure managers or their assets into public ownership, so in our view the amendments are unnecessary.
New clauses 10, 12, 13 and 33, tabled by the hon. Members for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), cover devolution and Wales. We absolutely share the ambition that the Bill should be a positive change for everyone, including the people of Wales. That is why our draft memorandum of understanding with the previous Welsh Government committed to support Transport for Wales to integrate track and train.
The intention was that the clause 72 power in the Bill could be used to facilitate integration on the Core Valley Lines. Although the MOU was signed with the previous Welsh Government, we are ready to engage with the new Plaid Government with the same proactive and collaborative spirit. I hope the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin will encourage her colleagues in the Welsh Government to engage with us—I have no doubt she will—and make options for integration a reality.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend will have heard representations for ensuring that, under clause 5, devolution agreements must not be unduly limited, either by the Bill or its implementation. Is he able to offer any reassurances to Transport for West Midlands and other bodies that they will continue to be part of the conversation about how the Bill is implemented?
Keir Mather
Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.
As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.
James Wild
The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.
Keir Mather
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.
Wendy Morton
I am conscious that the Minister is winding up, and I promise I will not ask about Aldridge train station. I want to ask about accountability. The Minister has spoken a lot about the transfer of powers and about devolution; I tabled an amendment, which I have decided not to press, on the need for clearer accountability and transparency.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that accountability and transparency should be at the heart of this. I think we have pointed to a bit of a discrepancy between the views of the major parties on how that should take place. It would be an interesting argument to say that, on the one hand, we did not want to micromanage the railway but then to put on the face of the Bill lots of key performance indicators that would allow us to do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the sentiment that accountability needs to run to the heart of GBR. That is what the passenger watchdog is there for: to enforce consumer standards on the railway as licence conditions for all operators. I thank her for raising that important point.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause 56, on antisocial noise. That is a debate that I certainly want to take forward, and he knows how passionate I was on that matter in Committee. I thank Members once again for their contributions and for getting the Railways Bill on track for what I am sure will be a pleasant journey through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 49
Modification of licence conditions
“For section 12 of the Railways Act 1993 substitute—
“12 Modification of licence conditions by the Office of Rail and Road
(1) The Office of Rail and Road may modify the conditions of a licence under section 8.
(2) Before making modifications under this section, the Office of Rail and Road must give notice—
(a) stating that it proposes to make the modifications,
(b) setting out the proposed modifications and their effect,
(c) stating the reasons why it proposes to make the modifications, and
(d) specifying the period (not being less than 28 days beginning with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed modifications may be made,
and must, before making the modifications, consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given—
(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Office of Rail and Road considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications; and
(b) by serving a copy of the notice on—
(i) each licence holder whose licence conditions are affected,
(ii) the Secretary of State,
(iii) the Scottish Ministers,
(iv) the Welsh Ministers, and
(v) the Passengers’ Council.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, having complied with subsections (2) and (3), the Office of Rail and Road decides to proceed with the making of modifications of the conditions of any licence under this section.
(5) The Office of Rail and Road must—
(a) publish the decision and the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing them to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,
(b) state the effect of the modifications,
(c) state how it has taken account of any representations duly made, and
(d) state the reason for any differences between the modifications and those set out in the notice by virtue of subsection (2)(b).
(6) Each modification has effect from the date specified by the Office of Rail and Road in relation to that modification.
(7) The date specified by virtue of subsection (6) may not be less than 56 days beginning with the date of publication of the decision to proceed with the making of modifications under this section.””—(Keir Mather.)
This new clause would allow the Office of Rail and Road to modify rail operator licences, including as required to promote consistent adoption of standards and services across the industry.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to start my remarks with a short story. This time two years ago, like many colleagues on the Government Benches today, I was not a sitting MP. I was a parliamentary candidate standing for the first time to represent my home town of Swindon, a place with a proud railway heritage, with its people unashamedly ambitious for the future. When I stood in that election, I stood on a promise of renationalising our railways.
There were some who doubted whether we would ever do it, but as this Bill heads off to the other place for its next stage of parliamentary scrutiny, I say to the doubters that this is what change looks like: a Government doing what they said they would do in their manifesto; a Government delivering for the ordinary men and women who use our railways, the businesses that depend on our railways, and the staff who work on them; a Government replacing a privatised system, which was corroding in a state of perpetual decline, with one where there is now new hope.
When I stood at London Bridge station last December, as we unveiled the new Great British Railways branding and train livery, I saw hope in the eyes of the passengers I spoke to—hope for a better, more reliable railway; hope for an end to waiting for trains that never arrive; hope for the basics of working toilets, enough seats and simple fares—because if we are honest, hope has been in short supply on the railways for far too long. For years, the industry delivered poorer performance for higher prices. As a nation, we spent billions on upgrading infrastructure, but a fragmented system could not translate that into passenger benefits. We have had 30 reviews since 2006, all diagnosing the same problem—re-diagnosing it time and again—yet the previous Government were not able and were not willing to do the hard work to create solutions. Today, we make that change.
Thanks to this Bill, we will deliver the biggest reform to our railways in 30 years. Where there is fragmentation, we will bring integration; where decisions used to be made for private profit, they will now be made for the public good; and where passengers were forced to navigate multiple companies and unclear accountabilities, they will soon deal with one railway and one team with one mission, which is to deliver better services for the travelling public.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) and I have a hope, which is that parking at Worcestershire Parkway station can expand. We have been told by Great Western Railway that it can no longer do that, because it is now the responsibility of Great British Railways. Can the Secretary of State reassure my hon. Friend and me that the wonderful entity she is creating through this legislation will expand the parking, so that my constituents can hope for a parking place at Worcestershire Parkway?
Heidi Alexander
People obviously need to be able to get to the railway station. This Bill gives me the power to establish Great British Railways. I will talk to Great Western Railway about the issue the hon. Member raises—the company is still in private ownership—and I will write back to her with further detail.
I would like to summarise the main features of the Bill and remind Members what we have already achieved. Over half of operators are already under public control, thanks to legislation we introduced weeks after entering office. The benefits are starting to be felt: around 40 new Arterio trains on South Western, rolling stock that was sat for years in the sidings under privatisation, now released into service; performance among operators under public control now outstripping those still in private hands; pay-as-you-go ticketing being rolled out to more stations across the south-east; easier to understand fares in Greater Manchester; and passengers keeping more of their hard-earned cash thanks to the first rail fares freeze in 30 years.
This Bill will be the most significant step yet. For decades, the industry has been crying out for coherent direction and leadership. With Great British Railways that is what it will get: a single national leader co-ordinating track and train, setting timetables and fares.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new powers in the Bill, particularly on timetabling. To give an example from my patch of how the new powers could be used to improve passengers’ experience without having to build any new railway infrastructure, hundreds of people have told me that they want a faster service from Hastings to London that does not stop at every single station along the way. That could shave a long time off people’s morning commute. On the other line I represent, passengers in Rye constantly miss their connection at Ashford because of the late-arriving Marshlink service, and face either missing their train or an extremely dangerous dash through Ashford station, where people fall over. If we could better co-ordinate between Southeastern and Southern Railway, that could be alleviated.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has been a dogged campaigner on the railways for her constituents in Hastings and Rye. I believe her proposals are worthy of consideration by Southeastern, a company in public ownership. I would be happy to pursue that further on her behalf.
GBR will sweep away decades of inefficiency and waste. We will finally bear down on spiralling costs. We will wave goodbye to a system riddled with perverse incentives, in which armies of lawyers argue over whose fault a delay is. Instead, GBR will be a publicly owned and commercially agile company run by industry experts, not politicians. We will turn a web of competing interests into one railway that makes decisions in customers’ interest and their interest alone.
Graham Stuart
I speak to the staff on Hull Trains, which are used by the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleagues—to her left, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and to her right, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather). I speak to the customers of Hull Trains and I see the huge economic benefit that Hull Trains, an open access operator, has brought to our region and all the other areas it serves down to London. They are fearful of the perverse incentives of a GBR that does not necessarily have any regard for open access operators. What is there in the Bill to protect Hull Trains when it seeks access to rail track in future?
Heidi Alexander
I have always been clear that there is a role for open access operators on our network where they provide value for money.
If I may now turn to passengers, I am not ashamed of the fact that GBR will be obsessed with delivering for its customers. In fact, it will have a statutory duty to promote their interests. That starts with ticketing, which is currently a mind-bendingly complex system. I have said it before and I will say it again: buying a ticket should be effortless. Fares should be simple and consistent, and passengers should know they are always getting the best value—and under GBR, they will.
A new ticketing app and website will give passengers the ability to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all from the palm of their hands—no booking fees, no navigating lots of websites; just a 21st-century way of paying for a service. If passengers are let down, if accessibility falls short or if performance is not up to scratch, they will have a powerful champion fighting their corner: a strengthened passenger watchdog.
Heidi Alexander
I will not give way.
GBR will also manage access decisions in relation to track capacity, enabling us to unlock the full potential of the whole network. That also means unleashing the huge economic and environmental potential of freight. Rail remains the best way to send bulky goods long distance, which is why GBR will have a legal duty to promote rail freight in line with our 2050 target.
GBR represents a simpler, more transparent railway to do business with. No longer will suppliers need to make their case to multiple parts of the network. GBR will be the single decision maker, able to take a long-term view, giving the private sector the confidence and certainty it needs.
I finish by thanking all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill so far—particularly those on the Transport Committee for their diligent approach.
Heidi Alexander
No. I am conscious of giving time to the shadow Secretary of State.
I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee for completing the painstaking task of line-by-line scrutiny. I also thank Members on the Front Bench, as well as those sat on the Back Benches, for their vital perspectives. I particularly thank the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation for handling the passage of the Bill so dutifully and ably. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Rail Minister, and give a huge thanks to all the officials in my Department who have worked so hard to get the Bill to this stage.
This Government promised to fix what was broken in our economy and reform what does not work. That is why the Bill matters. We will fix our broken railways. While I cannot promise it will be achieved overnight, I say this: will GBR put the needs of passengers and freight users above all else? Yes, absolutely. Will passengers soon see the difference in ticketing and reliability in a railway that is easier to use? Most definitely. Will GBR help to unlock economic growth, house building and opportunity across the country? Undoubtedly. The Bill draws a line under the decline and dysfunction of the past. Today, we are bringing hope back to our railways. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out.
We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters.
Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government.
That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong.
Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.
Wendy Morton
The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point.
If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control.
Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off.
We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire.
When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway.
The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Royal Lime Trees in Walton-le-Dale
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I am delighted to present this petition on behalf of Walton-le-Dale residents in my constituency regarding the potential felling of the 18 royal lime trees that have stood for 112 years. In this petition, and in a similar, separate e-petition with almost 8,000 signatures, the petitioners believe that the Environment Agency has not sufficiently factored in local heritage in its preferred flooding solutions.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley,
Declares that the Royal Lime Trees on Victoria Road, Walton-le-Dale, Preston, which have stood for over 112 years and serve as a living memorial to the coronation of King George V and Queen Mary, form part of the community’s identity and landscape but the Environment Agency’s current plans within the Preston Flood Alleviation Scheme would see 18 trees cut down; further declares that specific modelling has not been carried out and appropriate steps not taken to gather sufficient structural or geotechnical evidence for these plans; and further declares that the current plans are intrusive on the community and natural landscape, while less disruptive alternatives have not been adequately explored.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to direct the Environment Agency to commit to an independent review of the Victoria Road design in the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme, and to provide flood defences that are environmentally responsible, respect local heritage and reduce community disruption.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003206]
National Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a privilege to lead this evening’s Adjournment debate on improving national resilience. I am also glad that the Security Minister is responding. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As we have both served in what is now the Special Forces Strike Group, albeit at different times, I know he is one of the few people in this House who has seen the sharp end of national insecurity at first hand.
It has sadly become commonplace to say that we are living through unprecedented times. The international system we have all lived under has fractured, war has broken out across multiple continents and technological upheaval and a warming planet compound to create an increasingly volatile world.
We hear repeatedly across this House that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. It is repeated so often that it risks becoming a platitude, but here is the hard question: are we actually living up to that duty here in the UK in 2026? This evening, I will set out why I believe we are falling short and, more importantly, what we might do about it and how we might build a country and citizenship resilient enough to meet the growing and interconnected number of threats to our homeland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member. Resilience is about not just defence but health. To cast the mind of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House back to the national emergency of covid-19, the report of the UK covid inquiry mentioned “fatal strategic flaws”. The NHS did not collapse, although it came close and patients often did not receive the standard of care that they were due, and that led to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Does the hon. Member not agree that serious concerns about the lack of the health service’s effective surge capacity need to be addressed in anticipation of another national health emergency and to secure national resilience in the face of medical uncertainty?
David Reed
The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally.
The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services.
Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun.
One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places.
We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well:
“You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.”
As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. Clearly, the UK faces malign threats from Russia, from China and especially from Iran, as recent examples have shown. I commend the Government for bringing forward the tackling state threats Bill—reportedly next Wednesday, but we will see the business statement tomorrow—that will allow us to deal with the threats, but the public do not necessarily know just how severe they are. Does he agree that, as well as dealing with the threats, we need to educate the public on just how threatening these state actors are and why we need to deal with them now?
David Reed
There must have been a leak, because I am going to come on to that paragraph straight away.
Beyond the issue of funding, the obvious question that flows from this is who in Government should take the lead in having that conversation with the public about the panoply of threats that we face. That leads to the central argument of this debate: is the British state structured to deal effectively with them? I accept that the machinery of government is a surefire way to send those in this Chamber to sleep, but it is central to the direction of travel we must take.
I was waiting with bated breath to see who the Government would send to respond to the debate this evening, because logic would dictate that the Minister responding should come from the Department that the Prime Minister has charged with leading the national conversation on resilience. Here lies the first problem. The Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. His portfolio is broad, but it clearly does not cover anywhere near the full range of threats set out in the Government’s own definition of national resilience.
The Cabinet Office has a resilience directorate, which does important work co-ordinating civil contingency planning, crisis management and emergency response across national and local levels. I would not diminish the work that it does for a moment, but let us consider its design: a directorate for preparedness and a Cobra unit for crisis response. Risk and response. Notice what is missing. There is machinery to assess the threat and machinery to manage the emergency, but nowhere is anyone charged with turning to the public and saying, “Here is the threat we face, here is your part in it, and here is what is being done in your name.” The national conversation that we need therefore finds no natural home. It does not emanate from the directorates whose remit is risk and response; nor has the Ministry of Defence acted on the strategic defence review’s own call for a national conversation on defence and resilience.
The result is a system in which responsibility is spread so thinly that no single Minister owns the problem. The danger of that is not merely administrative tidiness but that when a crisis strikes, command and control will fracture at precisely the moment it must hold. For example, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—which hands the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping new powers to direct critical entities—illustrates the trend rather than reversing it. Individual Departments are accruing resilience powers of their own, with each cooking up policies to support their own patch. A whistle must be blown on this approach, because we risk spreading responsibility through legislation so thinly that no one truly understands where it lies.
When I speak to civil servants—all of whom want to see a stronger and safer country—I notice that the word “resilience” has itself become something of a buzzword, a phrase to attach to a business case to secure a bigger departmental budget. That is a sign of a system without a clear centre of gravity, not of one that is working. That led me to research in depth how our near neighbours have approached this problem—countries with national stories like our own and populations whose memories of insecurity have faded, just as ours have.
The clearest exemplar I found is Denmark. The Danes have grasped something that we have not yet acted upon: in an age of interconnected threats—where cyber-attacks become supply shocks become public-safety emergencies—danger no longer respects departmental boundaries. For decades they had run, as we still do, on a principle of sectoral responsibility—each Department minding risk in its own lane. They concluded that a system in which everyone is responsible is one in which, in practice, no one is.
In August 2024, the Danes acted, creating a dedicated ministry of resilience and preparedness, the first of its kind in the region, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. Within months, they established a resilience agency beneath it, drawing scattered functions into one organisation—one ministry, one Cabinet Minister, one clear line of accountability.
If truth be told, it is too early to say with certainty whether the model delivers the better outcomes that the Danes expect. The real test will come in the next crisis, not the last reorganisation. But the logic is sound because the alternative—broadly what we have—is a system where resilience is everyone’s second priority and nobody’s first. As someone who wants to see a smaller and sharper state, the answer is not a new layer of governance, but collapsing many duplicated ones into a single, accountable home. It is an idea that the Government should actively investigate.
I have also been struck by how our Danish and Dutch friends have begun to share the responsibility for resilience with their citizens, reinforcing civic duty in a far more deliberate way than we do here in the UK. Both have started speaking plainly to their people about preparedness and, strikingly, they tell them much the same thing: “Be ready to look after yourself for three days, or 72 hours.” The Dutch Government now tell every household to hold enough to manage for 72 hours in the event of war, a cyber-attack or a major disaster—things such as water, food, medication, a battery radio, some cash and key documents. They did not merely issue advice; they delivered a printed survival guide to every door and published it online in dozens of languages. Its message was carefully chosen, and the aim, Ministers said, is not to frighten people but to prepare them, because those who think through the first 72 hours of a crisis feel safer, not more fearful. The campaign’s slogan is simple: “Think Ahead”.
Denmark’s advice is almost identical, and the reasoning is the same: if ordinary people can get through the first three days, the authorities can concentrate on those who cannot. Denmark sent that guidance to every adult through its secure Government messaging system and placed 300,000 printed copies in libraries and public offices. It does not shy away from naming why, either. Its Defence Minister told Danes plainly that they and their allies face hybrid war and that each of us should prepare to be without power, water or shops for a short while. In both countries, the principle is the same: resilience is not something the state can simply hand to its people; it is a habit that the public must share in.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this debate and in particular for his focus on the need for cross-Government action and to address the range of threats we face. Does he agree that as part of the resilience planning, addressing the risks attached to climate breakdown and nature collapse are absolutely central? On his point about transparency, does he agree that the two suppressed reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ futures team need to be made available if the Government and Members across parties are to work clearly to address these issues and inform the public?
David Reed
The hon. Member raises an important point. For anyone who understands the science and sees the effects globally, climate change is happening, the planet is warming up, and we will all feel the effects of a heating planet. What that does to our critical national infrastructure, to businesses and how they operate, and to our energy systems will be profound, and it is something that I do not think we talk about enough. We talked about it a great deal a few years ago, but it sort of slid off the agenda. However, I also understand the challenges that the Government are facing at the moment: there are international threats, which seem to be conjoining, and climate change seems to be a further away problem. I understand the issues, and I hope the Minister can draw that subject in to show the interconnection of threats and how we will deal with them.
The uncomfortable part is that in terms of national messaging Britain has said and tried to do the same thing, but we say the words without a plan behind them, the public get alarmed, the moment passes, and nothing changes. Denmark and the Netherlands said those words and built them into the life of the nation, and that, in a sentence, is the difference between talking about resilience and doing it.
Let me close with three concrete asks of the Government. First, will the Minister confirm whether any Department or Minister has been formally charged with delivering the national conversation on resilience called for by the strategic defence review? If not, that gap must be filled—I think we would all agree on that. Secondly, will the Government commission a review, led from the centre, into whether the current dispersal of resilience responsibilities across Whitehall is fit for purpose, with the Danish and Dutch models considered explicitly? Thirdly, will the Government speak plainly to the British public about the threats we face, and back those words with a sustained public preparedness campaign, not a single statement that fades within a week, but a message built into the life of the nation?
I return to the statement that is made repeatedly in this House, which is that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. Meeting that duty requires a state that is structured to lead, and a public who are prepared to follow. We are not yet that country, but I have faith we can be.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I begin by paying tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for his previous service, including in the special forces support group. I also thank him for bringing this vital matter to the House, as this debate is central to our national security and our duty to the public. He made a number of helpful and important points. I completely understand why he mentioned the importance of the national conversation, and he can expect to hear much more about that shortly. He was also right to draw a comparison with other countries, and I am proud that many of the UK’s resilience structures and capabilities serve as examples of best practice. For example, the National Situation Centre, established under the previous Government, is highly regarded internationally, and the UK Resilience Academy, which I visited just the other day, is an important part of the skills and engagement offer.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Crystal Palace transmitting station in my constituency is such an iconic feature of our south London skyline that people often refer to it as Crystal Paris. It is also vital communications infrastructure. Will the Minister join me in recognising it not only for its everyday role in broadcasting television and radio to millions across our capital and beyond, but also for the contribution that such infrastructure makes to our national resilience in times of crisis and emergency, when trusted, reliable communications matter more than ever? Will he also join me in thanking the engineers, technicians, operators and all the staff who maintain and run that critical national infrastructure, often behind the scenes, ensuring that the public stay informed, connected and safe?
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work done at the Crystal Palace transmitting station. As he knows better than I, it is an iconic feature of south London, so I am happy to take the opportunity to thank all those involved for their work ensuring that the public stay informed, connected and safe. While I am on that subject, let me also thank all those who work at Emley Moor in West Yorkshire who do similar work. I was privileged to meet them just the other day.
Let me return to the remarks by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East about international comparisons. There are many similarities with our international partners, but as he will acknowledge, each nation’s approach is influenced by its history, geography, and societal approach to resilience.
Building on the good work of the previous Government, we have set out our strategic vision on resilience. Take for example our work following the covid-19 inquiry: we considered the findings and made deliberate updates to our resilience plans, including strengthening our relationships with the devolved Governments through the four nations ministerial group.
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise, successive Governments have for more than 20 years anchored the national security risk assessment as the foundation of their approach to the complex resilience landscape. That landscape continues to evolve and the risks that we face today are volatile, varied and interconnected. They include cyber-attacks, threats to energy security, global supply chain pressures and, of course, armed conflict. I am pleased to be able to talk about the Government’s approach to those areas, but first let me say something in response to the hon. Gentleman about accountability.
Under the lead Department model, each risk is owned by a single Department, ensuring those with the relevant expertise are responsible for the work to keep us protected against that particular risk. To support that, the Government will publish a refreshed expectation set for lead Departments. That will clarify how they are expected to deliver their responsibilities, as well as the role of other Departments in supporting them.
The Government have also taken steps to clarify accountability and enhance our readiness for the highest impact whole-of-system crises. We have explicitly embedded the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book, and we have strengthened governance on risk planning and mapped key cascading impacts of catastrophic risk to ensure a true whole-of-Government response, so if a catastrophe should happen, no Department can be in any doubt about its role.
Let us take a national power outage as an example. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero remains the lead Department across the whole risk cycle, from assessment to recovery, and continues to lead on the Government’s relationship with the energy sector. The role of the Cabinet Office is to step in to help lead the response, given the significant cross-cutting impacts that a national power outage would bring. That central co-ordination function allows all responding Departments to respond to their impacted areas, with the Cabinet Office providing situational reporting of the whole-system impacts of the risk. That way, the Government collectively understands and is prepared for the risks that the UK faces.
The Cabinet Office also leads on the overall response to severe weather. This is underpinned by the severe weather resilience network, where crucial inputs from the Met Office, which I know the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, are shared with individual Departments that lead on the response planning and resilience of the sectors that they represent. That ensures that when the weather turns, our response is unified, rapid and robust.
Our work is not just about how we plan for responding to emergencies; we have informed our understanding of their impact as well. We know that emergencies impact people unequally, and to address that we have developed the risk vulnerability tool and provided further guidance to local resilience forums, so that they can better identify and support those who are most vulnerable.
The UK Government are proud to be a part of an international community in which we can both learn from others and share our learnings, but I would not want anyone listening to think that planning and response is all down to Departments. Local resilience forums are a critical part of our resilience system. In fact, the stronger LRF trailblazers programme moves beyond legacy structures to build a local network that is agile, accountable and capable of protecting citizens at the neighbourhood level. The resilience action plan envisages a whole-of-society approach, redefining national resilience as a shared mission where citizens, communities, civil society, businesses and the public sector all play a vital and active role.
Finally, building a truly resilient society requires a fundamental cultural shift in the way that emergency preparedness is thought about. That includes being clear about the risks that we face and the actions that we can all take to improve our collective resilience.
Adrian Ramsay
On the point about transparency, the Joint Intelligence Committee’s national security assessment was partially released in January—it was a redacted version—only after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. That report highlighted that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are a threat to national security. What action is being taken following that report? In particular, when will the full version of the report be made available to Members of this House?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Let me give an undertaking to come back with the technical detail about the report that he has raised, but I hope he can be assured of the seriousness that the Government attach to such matters. All of us in this place, I hope, understand the nature of the climate crisis and the impact it is having now and will have in the future, and we in Government have an absolute responsibility to ensure that we are properly prepared for that.
The Government’s Prepare website provides guidance on the actions recommended for individuals, households and communities to increase their own preparedness and resilience. This debate highlights something fundamental: resilience is not an abstract policy objective, but, I hope, a shared national endeavour. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has spoken powerfully about the importance of strengthening national resilience in the face of evolving risks. We share his determination, and I would be very happy to continue the conversation with him about these matters.
Let me give the hon. Member some further assurance. Next month, the Government will make their annual statement to Parliament on resilience, which will provide a detailed update on the progress we have been making to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months or so. I hope that will go some way further to address the points that he has made, but, regardless, I give him and the House an assurance that we will continue to learn, adapt and build a robust future for the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations make two amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) Regulations 2020. First, they extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zones central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities pay to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction, as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from 1 September 2026.
It may benefit hon. Members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter the zone. They have been introduced selectively, only where evidence shows that they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. Seven clean air zones are currently operated by local authorities in England: Bath and North East Somerset; Birmingham; Bradford; Bristol; Portsmouth; Sheffield and Rotherham; and Tyneside.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My understanding is that there are no plans to introduce such zones in either Middlesbrough or Redcar and Cleveland, but is the Minister able to confirm that for the record?
Simon Lightwood
At this time, the Government have no plans to introduce further clean air zones to additional cities. Our focus is to work with local authorities to support them in meeting their legally binding obligations to improve air quality in their localities.
Let me be clear that these clean air zones are working. Between 2019 and 2024, in the city areas that have clean air zones, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%. They dropped by about a third in Bristol, by 40% in Bath and North East Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. However, it is more than just lines on a graph; these results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact by shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths.
The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our NHS. As a Government, it is one of the most important things that we can do for the public, and it is the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then Government built the “drive in a clean air zone” central services website to support local authorities to introduce and operate clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for a particular clean air zone and, if not, pay a daily charge to drive in it. A call centre supports people who do not use digital channels to make payments, and it helps local authorities with enforcement.
The 2020 regulations support the implementation of clean air zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the central services website. The regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable until 31 March 2027, which is the date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with a clean air zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous Government were not able to achieve that, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality target until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations. This instrument, which extends the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services.
The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed following the UK’s exit from the European Union. As a result, it is no longer possible to rely on the same powers to amend the original regulations. The draft regulations presented to the Committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
These draft regulations are an important step to ensuring that the costs of providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. I make it clear that raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% of the lifetime of CAZ central services from financial year 2020-21 to financial year 2030-31. That is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for the period if the £2 fee were to remain unchanged. It leaves the Government subsidising transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%. It is a sensible move towards full cost recovery.
I reassure the Committee on the potential concerns that the fee increase will be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that that will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing.
To be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This Government are backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the 5p fuel duty cut and introducing a 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. The extension to the 5p duty cut is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120.
We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance. Alongside that, we are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles. It has already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do that since July 2025.
Returning to the statutory instrument, the Government’s understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running in surplus. 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, not generate income.
For example, from the information published by Bristol city council, we understand that its clean air zone surplus has been running to several million pounds a year. This fee increase could reduce that by between £400,000 and £1 million a year in each of the coming three financial years. Should any local authority fall into a shortfall with its clean air zone operating costs, that will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules.
When clean air zones were established, the Government informed local authorities that the transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee.
Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for Transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect on 1 September.
The regulations will ensure that central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way, while supporting ongoing improvements to air quality. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart.
Across the country, drivers, particularly of older, often less expensive vehicles, have been hurt by the fees imposed by low emission zones and so-called clean air zones. Between ultra low emission zones and clean air zones, it is estimated that over £1 billion has been extracted from the public who are just trying to get about and live their lives: travelling to work, taking the kids to school, completing the family shop, getting to medical appointments or visiting relatives. Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities that will be impacted by today’s regulations.
If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol’s clean air zone brought in over £22 million in 2024-25 from daily charges and penalty notices. That brought a transfer to Bristol’s reserves of over £16 million, which contributed to the spending of £14 million on other transport projects.
Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham city council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since its scheme was put in place. Of that £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist, with only £10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. That is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects. The Minister will no doubt recognise that is not the purpose of the system but a by-product of it, and one that these regulations will impact.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech, in which he extolled the virtues of clean air. Getting clean air is a worthy goal, but it is not the stick that works on this occasion; it is the carrot. It is using technology as our friend—even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. It is the evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies, from battery electric to synthetic fuels and more, that will deliver clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today.
The draft regulations will impose a fee on authorities that use the central services function operated by the Government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about. According to the Government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers—in other words, that these increased charges will not just be passed on to drivers who are already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more.
The Minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty, which is one of the weakest of the Government’s U-turns. They tried to pretend that they were keeping it low, but then they U-turned and said, “It won’t be September that we put it up; it will be a few months later.” The Government are still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities, which have revelled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow the multiple millions that will be transferred to the Government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight?
Let me be absolutely clear: the Conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to the proposal is because we are concerned that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central services but will encourage further action from local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. That is a consequence of these changes that I fear the Government have not properly considered.
Furthermore, clean air zones are meant to be transitory, to improve air quality—although I question whether they do—and then find alternative solutions. That is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality, without resorting to clean air zones. Allowing these services to be used until 2031 suggests that there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly.
Driving is not a luxury. For millions, driving a car is necessary for daily life. It is freedom and a right that all of our constituents should be able to enjoy unencumbered by the state, whether national or local. Driving is practical. A weekly shop for a family of five cannot be carried on the back of a bike. The measures that Labour is introducing walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour’s war on the motorist, and it is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist, and we will oppose it.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I will briefly explain why the Liberal Democrats oppose the draft regulations before us today, which I intend to vote against. The first rule of politics is “learn to count”, and the Government’s counting in relation to this is quite something. They admit that the fee at its present level covers 86% of the expenditure on transactions, leaving them with a 14% shortfall. If they were bringing us a 14% increase in the charge today, the conversation might be a bit different. Instead, to cover that shortfall, they want to charge an extra 100% on the current fee. To borrow a phrase from a younger generation, “The math ain’t mathing.”
Councils have bought into a central scheme to try to lower their costs relating to the charge. The Government have a monopoly, as running their own scheme would be entirely unfeasible for councils. Many local councils are already suffering severe funding challenges, and now the Government are doing what looks to many like price gouging. What will happen is simple: councils will see an extra barrier to using clean air zones, so there will be fewer clean air zones and people in our urban centres will suffer as a result. Will the Minister be telling people in Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Newcastle that clean air is a privilege for which the Government would like to charge more? Or will his Department take the reasonable approach by going back to the drawing board to produce a proposal that feels a little less like a rinsing of local transport strategy budgets?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
In Bradford, our new Reform-led council wants to scrap the clean air zone. I believe that would be a serious mistake that future generations of Bradfordians would pay for. Our city has long had one of the highest levels of respiratory illness in Yorkshire, with children, often from deprived backgrounds, growing up near busy roads in Manningham, Shipley and the Aire Valley corridor, having been disproportionately exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels linked to asthma, stunted lung development and reduced life expectancy.
It was in 2022 that the Conservative Government required places such as Bradford to introduce a clean air zone. It seems that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has forgotten that the policy was first introduced by a previous Government. At that time, Bradford was in breach of legal limits for nitrogen dioxide at 35 separate sites across the district. That is not a minor infraction; it is a public health disaster hiding in the air that my constituents breathe. Today, three years into the scheme, the figure has fallen to just three sites. That is a transformational difference that did not happen by chance.
The clean air zone created a tangible incentive. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about carrots and sticks, and there is a definite incentive for the operators of the most polluting commercial vehicles, such as HGVs, buses, taxis and vans, to upgrade to cleaner alternatives. The impact on public health is evident. As of last year, the number of GP appointments in Bradford for people with breathing difficulties had dropped by nearly 600 a month since the clean air zone was introduced. Similarly, by reducing spending on inhalers, hospital admissions and long-term respiratory care, the clean air zone is estimated to have saved our local NHS around £30,000 every month.
Our city received close to £40 million from central Government to implement the clean air zone. That funding supported businesses to upgrade their fleets by transitioning to cleaner vehicles, making use of the benefits of technology and reducing their long-term operating costs.
On the draft regulations, it is important that the increased fees will not be passed on, and I hope the Minister will urge the Reform-led council in Bradford not to do so. The Government’s investment in cleaner buses in West Yorkshire in the coming years under the Bus Services Act 2025, bringing buses back into public control, will also have huge benefits in reducing respiratory problems.
In conclusion, Bradford’s clean air zone has driven significant improvements in air quality, and the evidence shows that it is benefiting the health of my constituents. Can the Minister confirm that any move by Reform to scrap the clean air zone before there is evidence of sustained air quality improvements would be both premature and reckless?
Simon Lightwood
I have heard that a couple of drops of olive oil is quite good for temporary hearing loss, so let me reiterate once again that this is not a tax on motorists. We do not expect local authorities to raise their charges to motorists on account of it, and we have expressly asked them not to do so.
Greg Smith
If local authorities pass on the fee, what will be the Government’s response?
Simon Lightwood
We have said, very clearly, that if this results in a shortfall, we will top it up through the new burdens assessment.
This is about good governance. The previous Government said they would review the costs when the data became clear. Good governance means that the Government provide a service that aligns with managing public money to ensure full cost recovery. We are doing this now because the last Government failed to increase the central services fee, which is designed to cover the cost of administering the services since they introduced clean air zones in 2020.
Most motorists entering a clean air zone will pay no charge at all because their vehicle is compliant, and the proportion is likely to continue to increase. The Government’s £2 billion electric car grant has helped 120,000 UK drivers move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025.
Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation. I can assure hon. Members that clean air zones are not a revenue raiser for the DFT. By moving the fee to £4, we are still subsidising central services to the tune of 10%. Under the new burdens doctrine, the Department will pay for local authority deficits that arise in their CAZ operations.
The Government have worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts. Local authorities that currently generate a surplus from their clean air zone will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase, but no local authority will be left in deficit.
To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and reckless. Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits. Authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained.
I hope I have reassured Members that these regulations will ensure that clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this draft order, which was laid before the house on 20 April 2026. It is the result of collaborative working between two Governments of the United Kingdom and of Scotland, and it upholds the 2023 fiscal framework agreement, which I will refer to as the 2023 agreement.
The draft order deals with the cumulative borrowing powers of the Scottish Government, and it is not the first time that the House or its Committees have considered such an order. As with the increase in borrowing limits order this time last year, the draft order, if made, will increase the Scottish Government’s cumulative capital and resource-borrowing limits to reflect inflation. It is made under sections 67 and 67A of the Scotland Act 1998, which set out the amounts available to borrow under section 66 of the Act. As specified in those sections, we bring forward the order with the consent of the Treasury. This is the third such order to be brought forward. The first was in May 2024, under the previous Government, and the second was last year, under this Government. The draft order, like all Scotland Act orders, delivers the Government’s responsibilities for the effective functioning of the devolution settlement.
The 2023 agreement sets out that the cumulative limits for capital and resource borrowing will increase based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. In the 2023 agreement, the UK Government agreed to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to increase those limits as necessary. If made, this draft order would increase the cumulative resource borrowing limit from a little more than £1.83 billion to a little more than £1.91 billion, and the cumulative capital borrowing limit from a little more than £3.14 billion to £3.27 billion.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Alexander
I have almost finished. I am happy to respond to comments made in the course of the debate.
The draft order will provide the Scottish Government with certainty over the cumulative borrowing limits for this financial year. I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Government remain accountable to the Scottish Parliament on how they use those increased borrowing powers.
In summary, the order will make amendments to UK legislation to increase the cumulative borrowing limits of the Scottish Government ahead of the next financial year. In doing so, the UK Government uphold our commitment to the 2023 agreement. As ever, Scotland Act orders are only possible with the joint working of officials in both Governments. I put on the record my thanks to officials across the Scotland Office, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Scottish Government for their work on the draft order. Such positive collaboration delivers for the people of Scotland.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. At first blush, the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 is, as outlined by the Secretary of State—we are honoured to have him with us, and it is the second time I have seen him today, which is twice more than the First Minister has seen him since the First Minister was reappointed, which of course is the First Minister’s loss—a relatively modest uplift to the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers to reflect inflation. As respecters of the devolution settlement, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not object to the order.
Context, however, matters. It cannot be outwith the scope today to reflect that this change gives considerably more fiscal latitude to the governing party in Scotland, the Scottish National party, whose own finances and procedures are under intense scrutiny. Serious questions about its stewardship of public money and its tax compliance dangle unanswered.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party is trying to conflate the uplift for the Scottish Government with internal party finances. The hon. Member is either trying to make a cheap political gag, or he is seriously conflating the borrowing powers of the Scottish Parliament with party finances. Is he accusing the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government of the danger of misappropriation of funds? He should be clear, because at the moment he is in danger of falling between two stools—making a silly political partisan gag and a rather serious accusation.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that we are just debating the increase in the borrowing limit.
John Cooper
Absolutely. I would like to clarify my point: it is not unreasonable in the context to look at this issue in the round. This is public money. The SNP wants to pretend that this is an internal matter for themselves, but question marks still hang over us about whether or not public money has been involved in what happened in Scotland. Also, there is the question of compliance with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Brendan O’Hara
If the hon. Gentleman insists on going down this road, which I strongly advise him not to, I assume that his party will be supporting the amendment in the Scottish Parliament for an independent review into party political finances conducted by a parliamentary Committee, to look into every political party.
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not quite within the scope of the legislation.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is raising some interesting points, though I think they probably are slightly out of scope of what we are debating. I want to ask him about the use of the GDP deflator—when I saw that, I thought it was referring to previous Conservative Chancellors, but of course, it is actually about the way that the framework is set. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended moving to a new system to use the highest levels available to increase borrowing for the Scottish Parliament. Is that something that he would encourage, or would he be concerned about such a recommendation?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important question. The GDP deflator is incredibly complex, as are all these matters. We talk about cross-Government working here, and I think there is a genuine attempt by this Government, as there was by the previous Government, to maximise the money available. The system is complex in how to measure inflation—there are many choices to be made. We are here with the GDP deflator, and that is as simple as that. We are not going to debate that today.
It is an oft-repeated canard in Scotland that the so-called Scottish Executive cannot borrow. This myth is a conspiracy theory as fake as the “Capricorn One” fanciful notion of faked moon landings, but it is sometimes perpetrated not only by internet trolls but by elected Members. This matters because it is corrosive to public trust in politics and inimical to the settled will of the Scottish people so clearly expressed in their rejection of separation in the 2014 independence referendum.
It would be welcome for the Secretary of State to indicate what steps this Government might take to puncture this no-borrowing fallacy, because for us to sit here silently, simply ticking off increased powers as part of a devolve-and-forget agenda, is dangerous. It gives succour to those who would break up the United Kingdom—something that would affect every one of our constituents in every part of Britain.
Peter Fortune
On devolution, we have to appreciate that the increase in the borrowing limit is underwritten by the whole of the UK economy. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows of any equivalent flexibilities that English local authorities, which are also under huge financial pressures, could use.
John Cooper
This is a difficult question. Something like £1.25 of public money is spent in Scotland compared to £1 in England. There is tension there within that settlement. That money reflects the difficulties that Scotland faces. Delivering public services in Scotland is difficult because of geography and also because of demographics, so that settlement is designed to reflect that. On the matter of English councils, I am afraid I would defer to him on that. I am no expert in that field, I am afraid.
We would all be poorer were Britain to be shattered by people who could not, to use a fine old west of Scotland idiom, run a menodge.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is good to hear that cross-Government working under the Scotland Act is creating this statutory instrument to increase the amount that the Scottish Government can borrow in line with the fiscal framework. We therefore support the statutory instrument to maintain the real value of borrowing, to the benefit of the Scottish people living in Scotland.
Mr Alexander
I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, raised important issues. I assure the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that I wrote down his points very carefully—although alas, not with a Montblanc pen. On borrowing, this debate goes on the public record, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman therefore that our observations in relation to public borrowing will be a matter of record itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough managed, I have to say, a rather good joke about the GDP deflator, which is no mean achievement and merits further consideration. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire spoke with characteristic wit, wisdom and brevity.
This draft order demonstrates the continued commitment by the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland and maintain the functioning of the financial settlement for Scotland. I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate—just to say it again—has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. The instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England.
This statutory instrument is a routine and technical measure that ensures that food supplement regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements. The regulatory approach taken here is well established: where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place.
Hon. Members will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are both listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards. Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used.
A related statutory instrument, the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, already laid under the negative procedure, adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established, and an SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before this Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.
Food law is a devolved matter and this instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplement regulations, and Northern Ireland applies the existing European Union equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor framework. It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory; it does not require any business to use this ingredient or to change their products.
The use of this new optional substance initially affects only the applicant who requested this authorisation, who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium, unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.
Food supplement legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary—or SPS—agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, this substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow the substance to be used in Great Britain as soon as possible.
In summary, the regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplement regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements and we continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I just have a couple of questions. I have read about magnesium L-threonate: it is supposed to promote relaxation, unlock true cognitive potential, improve sleep, mood and overall wellbeing, and enhance mental clarity, memory and focus, so I was thinking I might get some of that. However, if I were to recommend it as a supplement, there are a couple of things I would need to know. What would the dosing be? Can the Minister confirm whether the plan is to set the dosing of magnesium in line with other types of magnesium supplements and in line with the EU, or has that not been decided? Will that be decided on a different day?
My other question is how, when we look at supplements, we can be sure they contain what it says on the tin. The Food Standards Agency regulates that, but how many reports has it had of concerns about the content of supplements, and how many products does it test? I looked at its retail survey for 2025, which found that 83% of caffeine supplements failed because they had the wrong amount of caffeine, there were allergens not described on the labels, or they contained substances that should not have been there. How often should we expect the supplements to be tested? What sort of programmes are in place to ensure that the huge variety of supplements that people can choose from in shops these days are safe and that they contain what they say they do? Other than that, I am happy with the regulations.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank all Members for coming along and supporting the important measures before us today. I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her questions. I have made a note of them, and I am sure my official has as well. I have a huge binder full of information here, in which I could attempt to find the right answer for the hon. Lady—but, if she does not mind, I will commit to write to her on those very important points. I agree with her that it does sound like a possible wonder supplement; perhaps we should all rush out and buy some, especially if it helps with sleep. I know we could all do with a bit more of that. Specifically, the dosing plan, how often the purity will be tested and whether it does what it says on the tin are very important questions, so I will commit to write to her.
As I said in my opening remarks, this instrument is a routine technical measure to update food supplement regulations following the authorisation of magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a novel ingredient to ensure the appropriate purity criteria are in place so that it can be used and sold lawfully in food supplements in England. It does not place new burdens on businesses, but ensures that any use of the substance meets clear and consistent safety and quality standards, which I think is what the hon. Lady was driving at in her questions. I invite the Committee to support these draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee today.
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
Local Government Reform
(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
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about.
One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas. All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen.
Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum. Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?”
The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city. In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city.
But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that.
We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there. Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area.
I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do. If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition.
When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough.
But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character. Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road.
Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters.
I could go on and on. Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there. The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.
Neil O’Brien
I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets.
It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is very clear from my hon. Friend’s powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire do not want local government reform, and my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford in Essex do not want it either. Has he seen the letter from 16 council leaders from the County Council Network giving a whole host of reasons why it is a bad idea? I would add that it is a Trojan horse that Labour is using to try to cover our green fields in concrete. There is no demand for this. People do not want it. They want to protect their existing local identities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient.
One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city. I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire.
In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against the reorganisation in principle, but does he agree that if it is to go ahead, the Government should stick to the guidelines they provided to councils? In Oxfordshire, a Labour city proposal for a similar expansion of the boundaries of the city violates many of the principles set out, such as that it should be bounded by the existing district boundaries and, as far as possible, avoid breaking up service provision. Does he agree that, if this is to go ahead, the Government should stick to clear criteria when making decisions?
Neil O’Brien
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The local nature of local government is critical.
The other problem with these giant councils is how remote they will be. In Oadby and Wigston at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices, or take a maximum five-minute drive. Harborough is a little bigger, but is still very local. If we get a giant council, my constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to see council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and local government will be less local. The point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority will not necessarily care about.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument for councils to be more accountable to local residents by being closer. The Government responded to Sussex’s proposals by redrawing the red lines they had originally set and putting forward a third proposal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that just throws communities into total disarray? They thought they had responded to a consultation that was going to form the next council, but now they have been told, “Oh, actually, you can’t have either of those things. We’re going to come up with a new solution for you.”
Neil O’Brien
I am very sorry to hear that. It is bad when people feel that the goalposts are being moved because it erodes trust in the process even further.
Crucially, nobody asked for this. People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorted out locally, but nobody ever emailed me to say they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote. No one emailed me to say they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester. It is a bad idea, being done for the wrong reasons and in an undemocratic way.
I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants a bigger city and will get all the council tax and business rate revenues from the areas moved in. He would have a place to dump all the housing need without ruffling any feathers in the city. I can see the upside for him, but I cannot see what is in it for my constituents, and nor can they. They do not want this, as is clear and indisputable. The Government cannot pretend for a second that this is in any sense what local people want. The Minister here today does not live in our area, which is not her fault, but she has asked people what they think. Now that she has heard, I hope she will start to listen to local people as she makes her decisions.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us.
I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas.
Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful.
Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns.
Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city.
My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed.
Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery.
I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate.
Obviously, the Minister is not responsible for local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, but I want to caution against the approach that has been put forward today, because the shortfalls of what we have done in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be replicated here on the mainland.
It is nice to see the Minister in her place. She will know some of the things I have said in the past, including in my questions to her in the Chamber. We have done a local government review and reorganisation in Northern Ireland and it did not quite work out, so perhaps a cautionary approach should be taken, learning from the promises that were made and ultimately not delivered for us in Northern Ireland.
I note the optimistic projections before us. The House was told that this grand restructuring will streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. That is to be welcomed, if those words turn into reality. I wish I could say it is the reality of what happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not because the promises were not realised at all. From our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to the Government.
We had reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing their number from 26 to 11. Massive savings were promised due to less duplication, with no need to have so many middle staff because one departmental head could look after two sections, and no need to have buildings in all the council areas. Lots of savings were promised, and unfortunately they were not realised.
I served on a council for some 26 years from 1985 right through to 2010, so there is a very special place in my heart for local government. I know at first hand the real and tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there. Indeed, some of the best days I had were on the council. I love bread-and-butter issues, and councillors get their hands dirty with that sort of stuff.
I know that any Member who has served at local council level will agree that the general public having access to their council must be protected at every single level. Unfortunately, I suspect that will not happen with these reforms. We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. I look back with fondness on my 26 years of apprenticeship. For a short period of three months, I served as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP at the same time. I gave an undertaking to resign from the other two places to take up my position here, and I did.
The systematic removal of face-to-face access for people in our towns and villages caused by aggressive centralisation can never be acceptable. We have seen this movie before. It is like a less funny “Groundhog Day”. It happened to us in Northern Ireland, and it is going to happen here again—except when we wake up this time, it will not be so much fun.
Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which reduced the number of councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then mirror the promises made today. A 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is still too early to determine if those reforms have been cost-effective. Crucially, the report also revealed that the new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined—wow. The promises were never realised. Indeed, they went the other way. As has already been said, bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. Centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency.
The Minister is an honourable lady who does her best for us all in this Chamber. Looking to Northern Ireland, has she and her Department fully taken into account the findings of that DFC report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted? What iron-clad guarantees can she offer to ensure that we are not promising billions in theoretical savings, when the reality might mean taking more hard-earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers? That is what this means, as that is who pays for it all at the end of the day.
We must not allow structural change to become an expensive, box-ticking exercise that leaves hard-working families picking up the tab at a particularly difficult time.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?
Jim Shannon
That intervention sums up my comments, and it provides further evidence. When Ards borough council, on which I served for 26 years, was partnered with North Down council, we took on North Down’s debt, while we had been prudent—very Ulster Scottish—and had made sure that our moneys were well managed. That is not a bad reflection on North Down council, but it illustrates the issue. The hon. Lady has illustrated it incredibly well with her comments.
I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common, as the hon. Lady just said, and removing the face-to-face contact points, centralising to an inaccessible hub and doing all of that with no savings to show over 10 years must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections do not meet the reality. We must all be aware of the myriad difficulties presented. I gave the example of Ards borough council and the changes in Northern Ireland. It did not work for us. Will it work here?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Colleagues will note the number of Members who are interested in speaking and the time available. I will call the Front Benchers from 10.30 am, so please do the maths.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. I place on the record my thanks to Grace Thomas from my office for the notes associated with my speech today.
The Minister was in front of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee yesterday and gave us some strong answers, which is typical of her style. Today, I want to try a slightly different tack. It is on the record that I am not a fan of unitaries. I was a councillor for many years, at parish, district and county level. I know the strengths and weaknesses associated with that model, and I would argue that it is a lot better and more efficient than unitary authorities. As I said to the Minister yesterday, in my experience, the proposed savings from moving to the unitary model never come to fruition. If it is not broken, why change it? Others have already spoken about the debt levels associated with some authorities. There is an inherent unfairness in taking on someone else’s debt and being forced to pay for it.
However, my focus today is volunteers and the voluntary sector. Last week was Volunteers’ Week, which provided us with an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers and charities across South West Hertfordshire. To mark the occasion, I visited a number of outstanding community organisations whose work is made possible by the dedication of volunteers and charitable support. Those organisations provide vital services to local residents and strengthen the fabric of our communities, but many of them rely heavily on local government funding streams and commissioning arrangements to sustain their work. For example, the citizens advice bureau in South Oxhey highlighted that the proposals for local government reform have created huge uncertainty, and that there are concerns about how changes will affect its ability to continue supporting the 20,000 clients it assists each year.
When I met the medium-sized charity Community Action Dacorum in Kings Langley, Simon spoke about how it is reliant on commissioned contracts from local authorities to provide support in the community. The charity stressed the importance of MPs’ understanding the impact of LGR on the funding and operation of charities, describing it as a
“significant risk to the voluntary and community sector”.
Many charities like CAD are concerned that the transition to new unitary structures could disrupt existing commissioning arrangements and funding streams, creating financial instability.
There is also concern about unintended consequences. Charities report increasing pressure to align with Government priorities because of fears that failing to do so could affect future commissioning and funding opportunities. Charities and community organisations should be focused on delivering vital services to local residents, not managing uncertainty over future funding and governance arrangements. The disruption of established funding mechanisms and commissioning structures risks undermining the sustainability of essential local services and the support networks that my communities depend on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I preface my remarks by saying that I have a high personal regard for the Minister and I am sure that she would never personally wish to do anything unfair or politically partisan. However, there are very good reasons why, when changes are made to anything to do with constituency arrangements or democratic arrangements, they are normally carried out under the authority of an impartial body. I believe, as I suspect my Conservative colleagues believe, that if a body such as the Boundary Commission had been in charge of this operation, the results would have been very different. A coach and horses has been driven through anything to do with local, cultural or historical, as well as, shall we say, orientation among communities—all those ideas have been totally disregarded.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Dr Murrison, that we would need a much longer debate if we were to do justice to the enormity of what has been proposed. My hon. Friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas will be subsumed under and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. That is exactly what is happening in the city of Southampton, with the naked land-grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency—wards known collectively as the Waterside—coupled with another land-grab of wards from Test Valley borough council that are contained in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency.
I must emphasise that the changes were first proposed long after the general election and were not in Labour’s general election manifesto. Labour rightly thought it proper to put in its manifesto the fact that there would be elected mayors and strategic authorities, but the abolition and merging of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody’s vote.
The Government like to trumpet the fact that they are strongly in favour of the devolution of political power and of listening to what local people want. Well, I have some data for the Government. Ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency—splitting the constituency and the New Forest apart and tearing the Waterside away from the New Forest, which Waterside inhabitants have for hundreds of years viewed as part of their community—an online petition has been gathering signatures. This issue is relatively local to a part of the south of Hampshire, so we might think that, if we were lucky, the petition might get 5,000 or 6,000 signatures. I checked at exactly 10 o’clock this morning and there are 22,812 signatures so far, and I am sure that the total is well over 25,000 with paper signatures taken into account. What sort of issue must there be for 25,000 people in a local area to say that they utterly reject the tearing apart of the New Forest in this way and its takeover by the city of Southampton, which, as we have heard is the case in other scenarios, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the aegis of New Forest district council are accustomed to being in?
I have many more points that I would like to make, but, out of consideration for my colleagues, I am not going to make them. I will make just one final point. We have tried—we really have—to engage in a sincere way with the Government. When the original Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria: there would be no unnecessary duplication or fragmentation, and the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils unless—as an exception—there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries. However, the only reasons given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something, which could be said in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous.
I am sure that if this Minister had full strategic authority—to make a bad pun—over this policy, we would not be experiencing what we are experiencing. There is total outrage about this matter. It needs to be put right, and I hope the Government can be persuaded to think again.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate.
It was also a pleasure to hear from everybody’s honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not the first time he has come here and said, “I know that Northern Ireland is not covered by this, Minister, but perhaps our experience can be instructive,” but boy was he right today. There are two key questions, and he highlighted the importance of the first: “Why do this at all?” With all the attention it needs, it will take away from other priorities, at a time, in particular, when we are about to have huge changes to the system for special educational needs and disability. There are also the costs involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) said, it is a question that literally no one was asking, and the answer was not in the Labour manifesto.
Even if we accept that there can be reorganisation, we must ask: “On what basis?” In East Hampshire, this plan will break up communities, take away local identities and put people into new artifices. It will take the people of Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and put them into a new super-council area centred on Portsmouth, with the rest of East Hampshire going to a vast area called the Mid Hampshire unitary authority, all for an uncertain and quite likely negative return. In plain English, that means that local people will end up paying more.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, the Government set out clear criteria for reorganisation, which included a focus on sustainability of high-quality services and a minimum scale of 500,000—that number did not come out of nowhere; it came from a serious piece of work by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the minimum scale needed to deliver services—and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. It was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process. They were not clamouring for it—leaders in Hampshire were not knocking down the door of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government saying, “Please reorganise us!”—but they engaged in good faith in the process.
Nick Adams-King, the leader of Hampshire county council, set out a summary of conditions for change, including that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. He said:
“It must be capable of delivering high-quality services”
and
“resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children’s services and SEND.”
Crucially, he said, it must have “a balanced tax base” and “reflect real communities”, and
“not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from area to shore up another.”
I do not think I could put it any better than that, but that is not what has happened. There were three different options in Hampshire, with different rationales for them. In theory, the fewer the unitary councils, the bigger the cost savings, but Hampshire county council and my district council in East Hampshire preferred the middle option, which was to have four authorities—a balance between delivering savings and reducing risk.
There has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options by different people looking at them. Crucially, we do not know the Government’s own analysis of the different options for carving up Hampshire and why they chose the one they did. We do know that, of the different local authorities, two on the mainland are smaller than the 500,000 minimum. Of course, the Isle of Wight is smaller again, although there are unique circumstances there.
We know that there are substantial costs. Although there will be some economies of scale in things moving from district level to unitary level, there will also be diseconomies of scale in things moving from county level to unitary level, and those are the things with the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry what this will mean for housing. All the local plan work was done on the basis of the existing district councils; now, that will not work. People worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them.
Crucially, there is the question of identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean, Rowlands Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth, and this is also a concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, for parts of the New Forest, for Test Valley and for Winchester. The Minister has spoken of how identities grow over time. These are entities that have been in place for at least 50 years, around which other organisations have organised themselves. Charities and other public sector organisations organise themselves around district and borough boundaries, and these changes will inconvenience them.
If the Government insist on proceeding, the process will need time and sober assessment, and for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. This is not a trivial question; it is about some of the most important things in our lives, such as the care for our ageing mums and dads and for the children with the highest needs and vulnerabilities. It is a long-term decision. This will not have an effect for three or five years; it will have an effect for decades.
We need to start by knowing on what basis the Government made their decision. We cannot very easily argue with it if we do not know what it is. The letter from the 16 council leaders mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a very reasonable ask: that we should know the Department’s own analysis and feasibility assessment. I say to the Minister simply: please, show us your workings.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire.
Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place. Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial.
Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area.
Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area.
Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them? Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it.
My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities.
That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities.
Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I served for 26 years as a local councillor, 14 of them were on the former Grimsby borough council. I then served for another 12 years on what became North East Lincolnshire unitary authority. I tend to favour unitary councils on the whole, and I have some sympathy with elected mayors—I can see the value of them in the big cities—but how we balance their powers and look after the interests of provincial towns and larger rural counties is open to debate. I am not yet convinced of the need to have a mayor for a vast rural county such as Lincolnshire.
The Minister will know that the Government, in proposing any form of local government reform, are opening a can of worms of local rivalries—civil war within the Labour party, I am sure, and other issues. The Minister is too young to remember the local government reorganisation of 1973-74; I think I am probably the only one who can remember it but, in many respects, it turned out to be a disaster.
My former Grimsby council was pushed into Humberside county. County Humberside was a complete and utter disaster. The identities north and south of the river are completely different. If Humberside is mentioned on the streets of Grimsby nowadays, the response is—shall we say—not polite, to say no stronger than that. It was a complete and utter disaster. The previous Government tried to create a Humber local enterprise partnership, which failed because it was cross-river. We still have Humberside police and Humberside fire authorities and so on, but even now I would say to leave those well alone.
We all tend to favour devolution because it means that local people are making decisions. That is good but, of course, it leads to a postcode lottery, because different councils will make different decisions. My appeal to the Minister is about local government finance. When I was first elected, way back in 1980, local government was still a really powerful force in the local community and could embark on some very important projects of great benefit; but over the years I have seen the powers and responsibilities whittled away, and local authorities, to a great extent, are tools of central Government. That will always be the case to some degree, because central Government relies on local authorities to deliver many essential services, but local pride and local identity play their part.
I keep talking about Grimsby—I only have one ward of Grimsby in my new constituency, but I am a resident there, and that gives me some right to speak about it. We have had a mayor since 1201, apart from a few months when Grimsby was abolished and we merged into North East Lincolnshire, and we had a chairman. Thankfully, we got a new royal charter and ended up with a mayor, because local identity is important. People like the mayor turning up in the red robes and chains of office to open the church bazaar and those sorts of things. It creates identity, something that is sadly lacking. If we go into any northern town and look around the central square, we will see vast town halls and great civic buildings, mostly constructed in Victorian and Edwardian times. They knew how to project local identity, power and responsibility, and I would like to see something of a return to that.
My particular plea is on the financial basis of local authorities. Many are in debt, and unless local government reorganisation is linked to reform of local government finance, we are in desperate straits. Many authorities have already issued section 114 notices, and others are teetering on the edge. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), who is no longer in her place, mentioned earlier, many of the new authorities do not have a financial foundation on which to build. We urgently need local government finance reform. The poll tax—community charge—from the 1980s now frightens us. It was a mistake, but the fear of reorganising the finances lingers on. Unless there is a firm financial foundation, new authorities, as well as some of the existing ones, will flounder.
North Lincolnshire council has an excellent Conservative-run administration. North East Lincolnshire council sadly now has a Reform leader, but that is hopefully only temporary. My plea to the Minister is this: “Please leave Lincolnshire as it is for the moment and look at the finance of local authorities.”
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Last but by no means least, I call Lewis Cocking.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your election to this House, which happened a few days ago? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.
For the past few months, I have worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that their hard work paid off: they were elected on to Broxbourne district council and it remained under Conservative control, with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents, and not one person said to me that they wanted to see Broxbourne council abolished. If they were aware of the Government’s plans to do just that and force us into a large unitary authority stretching 40 miles from top to bottom, they wanted to know what I was doing to stop it.
I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, we will be told that local councils were knocking down the door of MHCLG, saying, “We want to reorganise. We want to go into large unitary councils.” Well, I have seen the letter that the Government sent to my council, and councils had no alternative but to reply to that letter. This is forced local government reorganisation, no matter what people say.
The people of Broxbourne instinctively understand what Ministers continue to deny: that large councils are remote from the people they serve, with decision makers naturally less concerned about towns and villages that they have no connection to. Moreover, the big new authorities will cost towns and villages money, not save it. There will be no savings from reorganisation. I am yet to see any evidence that unitary councils provide better government than the two-tier system that we have in place. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation—whether North Yorkshire or Somerset—come forward and say, “D’you know what? We’re awash with cash. We’ve got so much money now that we’ve saved so much through reorganisation.” I have not seen that.
In fact, when Somerset council went through reorganisation to become a single, large unitary council that the Government accepted, it increased council tax by 10%. There were no savings. If the Government are hellbent on doing this and want to move forward with it, they should show us the evidence that that type of council serves its residents the best, is cheaper and provides better services.
Last year we learned that the Department did not even carry out its own cost analysis of the reorganisation. Do not get me wrong—Broxbourne council is not perfect, nor is any district council—but, given its reasonable size and proximity to residents it at least has a chance to make a positive difference, if run well. It is no secret why Broxbourne residents voted to keep the council the same, as they do year after year. Council tax is lower than anywhere else, while services such as waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax. We all know that, when reorganisation comes, the new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates that it can get away with. From day one residents in the new authority, which my constituents will be forced into, will pay more in council tax but get less back. For those reasons, I fundamentally oppose the reorganisation.
The process we have seen so far should also make us doubt the Government’s ability to achieve what they have promised. As already mentioned, just last week the County Councils Network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, pointing out that the top-down imposition of local government reorganisation, as we have seen in Sussex, goes against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have made this point, but I too say, “Please show us the evidence. Show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances of what the Government want to achieve.” It is difficult to do that when I have sat in a number of debates on this issue—I was on the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026—and not seen one shred of evidence that the new authorities will deliver better services and charge less in council tax. The majority of councils in Hertfordshire, including Broxbourne, support the proposal to create four unitary councils, rather than two or three, as they know that councils operating as close to the people as possible serve their residents better.
When it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation—and let me be crystal clear for the avoidance of doubt, though it will be no surprise to the Minister, I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire—I hope that the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on that. I urge the Minister, as I do every time in such debates, “Please review the policy, please make sure that future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure that whatever system is forced upon us will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.”
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious.
Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map.
Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case.
What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.
Lewis Cocking
I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?
Mr Forster
We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue with the rest of what I said?
Mr Forster
I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit.
If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback.
We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder.
The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise.
Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.
Mr Forster
Half a billion pounds. We have had that debt write-off and we have also had exceptional financial support—known as EFS. The lack of understanding of that issue was apparent in yesterday’s Select Committee. The Minister says that they want to get through the fair funding review so that they have a better idea of what money local councils need, to fully enable local authorities to have multi-year funding settlements. I am fine with that, but it does not get rid of the need for cash and being aware of the lack of it. Referring to my earlier point that the Minister did not know how much money could be saved from reorganisation, it has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that the Government do not have an assessment of how much this will save. That is not acceptable.
Councils need money, but we cannot put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we do not know how much will be saved in the first place. Councils have not been properly supported for the transition and, try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the Minister says, Labour is not in full possession of the information that it needs to make a success of it.
In Surrey we are the canary in the coalmine. The elderly, vulnerable and children are already suffering and Surrey county council is refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is breaking. The Minister and Government are making all this effort with these changes, yet are not actually addressing the problem. Ministers do not know how much to invest or what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem; it is creating new ones.
I understand that they have their work cut out—it is a big job and it is never easy. However, in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that needed answers. Looking ahead, addressing those challenges will be essential for anyone hoping to secure a role under Andy Burnham. If the Mayor of Greater Manchester becomes Prime Minister, he will be looking for a Local Government Minister who can answer these questions. I was disappointed with the Minister’s answers yesterday, but we still do not have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the Government have bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the Minister will tell Parliament the answers to those questions right now.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for.
Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have.
As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further.
Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.
That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns.
In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that.
This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail.
As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening.
Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer.
I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process.
Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.
Sir Julian Lewis
There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.
David Simmonds
My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall.
I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset.
What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I add my own congratulations on your important anniversary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on local government reorganisation. I know that he has strongly held views on the future of his constituency, as we have heard today. For reasons of time, I will not repeat the names of all those who have spoken, but it has been a joy to hear so many Members describe their communities.
I say to all Members that I know we disagree on this topic. The point of this House is disagreement, so our disagreement is not only expected but welcome. However, someone listening to hon. Members might think, “There is no problem in local government and everything is okay—if only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation!” I simply say to Members that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen because of the age of our population, the burden on local government in adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas, including special educational needs and disabilities, homelessness, adult social care and children’s care, which have meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure in this place. It now falls to those of us in this House to try to put that right.
Alison McGovern
I will make some progress.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.
As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.
That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.
The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.
I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.
Edward Argar
Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?
Alison McGovern
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I cannot respond directly on Leicestershire because the decision has not yet been taken. To clarify, the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely, and he can invite proposals for councils, which is what we have done, but he does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch. I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman to make that absolutely clear, but that is the position.
Local government can help councils to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and ensuring that everywhere and everyone is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment. It also has social and public services benefits. Most of the Government’s key objectives, whether to get more young people into work or lift children out of poverty, rely on co-operation and integration between our public services. I have heard from hon. Members about how the split in the two-tier system is preventing their councils from working together on homelessness, for example. That is why we want to bring services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof, with one council able to see the full picture and spot problems early—for example, supporting a family in need of housing and then supporting the children to stay in school.
I am pleased with our progress so far. Decisions on councils for five areas have been announced and elections have been held for the new councils in Surrey. On the Leicestershire council areas of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess in July. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028, as planned. That applies to all areas awaiting an announcement.
I listened to the debate with interest, as I always do. Members have put their views on local government reorganisation in their areas on the record, and I will try to answer their questions, but I am conscious that I have little time, so I ask them to bear with me.
The shadow Minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. We do that. Members should consider this debate to be part of the consultation process; I will ensure that the Department is aware of their concerns. The shadow Minister also asked about considering the interests of the whole country. He will know that the previous Conservative Administration introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility for the purposes of transparency on related matters. We take decisions based on the evidence in front of us. He will also know how advice given to Ministers in that way is treated by all Governments for the purposes of FOI and other things.
Hon. Members were keen to ensure that their constituents have the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I reassure them that decisions on the appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, having regard to the criteria and the statutory guidance.
Some hon. Members made a point about bigger being better. There are good councils of various sizes, and the evidence we have is that the primary factors in council failure are governance, leadership and culture. It is not the case that bigger is always better; councils of various sizes can perform well or less well.
We are confident that the decisions we announced before the Easter recess will enable strong, sustainable local government that is connected to the community it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions; I also recognise the work that is now required to ensure that the transition to new councils is done safely, especially in those key social care services on which some of our constituents rely. I reassure hon. Members that the Department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils, to ensure that the transition goes well.
I will have to leave it there, but I know that hon. Members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.
Neil O’Brien
Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The irony of all this is that the Minister’s only argument is that we must avoid a two-tier system, but what the Government want is to replace one two-tier system with a completely different two-tier system that has a mayor and unitary authority. It is an exercise in the utmost futility.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Contact Arrangements
(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
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call Alison Hume to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children in child contact arrangements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to lead a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue that is of great importance to me, to my constituents and to other Members of this House.
When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child’s right to safe family arrangements. However, so many are not functioning in the child’s best interests. Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales, and counterclaims of parental alienation are increasingly being made in response to allegations of abuse.
So-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child’s relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate on a very complex issue. There were elements of the Courts and Tribunals Bill that were impossible to support, but it also sought to address the issue of a child’s consent in contact arrangements and, importantly, the need for the child’s opinion to be a consideration that is given weight. Does she agree that the child’s desires must be considered, not simply overlooked, and that the Government must make these changes outside the Bill if it falls?
Alison Hume
I completely agree that the child’s voice must be heard and is too often overlooked.
Some of these so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Changes proposed in 2025 to address the issue of unregulated psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered with the HCPC. HCPC regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, during which experts can continue to practise. The proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation experts who are successfully registered and regulated. I am concerned that if any reviews or reform focus only on unregulated experts, all that will do is drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts.
If parents do file a complaint, that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation, as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House and for mentioning the so-called experts. We know that accusations of so-called parental alienation are too often used against mothers who are trying to protect their children, but because so few family law cases are publicly available, we do not know the true extent of the problem. The campaigns led by Right to Equality, Women’s Aid and Hague Mothers are important, but does my hon. Friend agree that when a mother says, “My child is not safe,” the court should hear her and believe her rather than using the guise of parental alienation to dismiss her?
Alison Hume
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed.
If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse.
The non-profit Right to Equality has conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers.
I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile.
In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled:
“I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.”
The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said:
“The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.”
At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s
“unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.”
The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father.
It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words:
“I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.”
Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary.
In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court.
In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed.
However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order.
As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse.
I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker.
An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation.
I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves.
Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?
Alison Hume
I have raised with Baroness Levitt not only the lack of access to child contact centres but the cost of access. It appears that many of them are unregulated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.
To conclude, everybody wants to see the family justice system evolve to better recognise children’s lived experiences, support safer and more effective participation, and make decisions that promote long-term recovery and healthy outcomes. I ask the Government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunals Bill to totally discredit the use of experts who subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, to ensure that those speaking their truth are properly heard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and commend her for securing such an important debate.
I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared—stories of children feeling unheard and of families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. As a mum, I find them really difficult to hear, but people do not need to be parents to understand the pain that they describe. Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their wellbeing and future, as all of us here do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light.
I know from my hon. Friend’s previous speeches in the main Chamber, as well as from the meetings she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about ensuring that children’s voices are not lost in family court proceedings. She is right; no one could disagree that children must be at the heart of any decision that the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives. Whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children we work for. It is their welfare, experiences and futures that matter. They are who I have in mind when I speak today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and the need for children’s voices to be heard and believed when they say that they have experienced abuse. The question is, are we listening when a child tells us that something is wrong?
The family courts often deal with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. Throughout those proceedings, the child’s welfare must be the guiding principle. I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which makes it clear that the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration when the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child. It is also why the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of that Act requires the court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Those requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders; they are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who also raised that issue. I reiterate the Government’s position clearly: we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome. We do not believe that it can be diagnosed.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is true that the Government do not recognise parental alienation and the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality that analysed language used in family court judgments found that over 70% of those judgments used victim-blaming language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the Judicial College to some scrutiny if those are the kinds of judges that it is producing?
Catherine Atkinson
I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday, so it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at.
The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent’s limited involvement in the child’s life and poor parenting. The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made, a child’s rejection is a justified response to that abuse. That behaviour should not be characterised as alienating behaviour. That is incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them.
The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion. Taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council’s guidance are clear: children’s voices must always be central in those cases. I also acknowledge the important point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), as well as the fantastic work that contact centres undertake. That work is so important to the relationships of parents and their children and wider family relationships as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal. As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight those cases, and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of that is of a parent and child being torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, with seemingly no straightforward means of resolution.
That is why I welcome the important work being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the family division to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed. Although it would not be appropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that work, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we recognise the importance of the concerns and are closely monitoring the work as it progresses.
My hon. Friend also raised an important question: what more can we do to ensure that children’s voices carry weight in family courts? That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. I assure her that there are already encouraging signs of progress. In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to guide judges on how to write to children so that they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children. The Family Justice Board brings the voices of children into the heart of the Government’s work in this area by including representatives of the Family Justice Young People’s Board in its meetings. That means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people, but we know that there is more to do.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the child-focused model. Following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling that model out nationally over the next three years. It is a significant change in approach. Too often family proceedings become focused on the conflict between parents—between adults. The child-focused model centres on the needs and views of children at the start of every case through the introduction of the child impact report. That report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, with relevant agencies and, crucially, with the children themselves in most cases. That means that judges receive better information earlier and can make orders that are safe and sustainable, sparing many children the trauma of their cases repeatedly returning to court. The impact is already clear: cases operating under the model were resolved about twice as fast as the national average, which means that children can get on with their lives rather than being stuck in the limbo of family court proceedings. Importantly, children who have experienced the model consistently report feeling listened to; one young person described feeling as though a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. That speaks volumes.
My hon. Friend also spoke about wider reform, including the case for a family justice Bill. I understand that ambition but would point to the significant programme of reform already under way. We are repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that is testament to the brave fight of campaigners such as Claire Throssell, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and many more. Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 we are restricting the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse and where a child is born of rape. My colleague Baroness Levitt has confirmed that we will implement Jade’s law by the end of the year. Taken together, those measures will protect thousands of children each year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also rightly raised the problem of unregulated parental alienation experts. Families facing family court proceedings are often navigating some of the most difficult parts of their lives. It is absolutely essential that experts are suitably qualified, properly regulated and held to appropriate professional standards. So-called experts on parental alienation are practising the kind of pseudoscience that we do not want to see in family proceedings.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on such a crucial topic and for her determination in championing these issues. Every child who comes into contact with the family justice system is already navigating the most difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that protects them, that listens to them, and that puts their welfare above everything else. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber shares that goal. We want children to be safe, to be heard, and to have the chance to move forward with stability and hope. That is what this Government are determined to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026
(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
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Today marks 43 days until Glasgow hosts the 23rd Commonwealth games. The games will happen from 23 July to 2 August, and the city will welcome about 3,000 athletes from 74 nations and territories across the Commonwealth, who will compete in 10 sports and six para sports. The event offers a fantastic opportunity for Glasgow to host world-class athletes from across the Commonwealth, competing at the highest level, showcasing Scotland on an international stage and providing an exciting cultural and economic opportunity for the city.
Glasgow will become only the third city in history to host the games twice, following its success in 2014. This is a source of great pride for our city, but as hon. Members will be aware, Glasgow was not intended to be the host city in 2026. When the Australian state of Victoria withdrew from hosting the games, Glasgow, with support from the UK and Scottish Governments, stepped in to ensure that the games took place, which for a time was in doubt.
In doing so, there was recognition that these games must be different. The idea needed to be refreshed to ensure a more sustainable model—reducing cost while continuing to highlight and benefit host cities, give our athletes the chance to compete at the highest level, and inspire people across the Commonwealth to take part in sport or be more physically active. For those of us who live in what we might call the devolved nations, the Commonwealth games are the only opportunity that our athletes have to wear the vest of their nation at a world-class event in sport.
The new model for Glasgow 2026 is not funded through the normal methods. The delivery of the games themselves does not really require public funding, but it is welcome that the UK Government have made available £2.3 million as a contingency towards security costs. The Glasgow 2026 “Story of Change” framework provides a way to take a new and innovative approach to the games, focusing on four key areas. First, it seeks to deliver a greener games, demonstrating that major events such as these can reduce waste and carbon emissions. As part of that approach, these games are making use of the legacy of the 2014 games by using four pre-existing venues to host events. We have Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Scottish Event Campus, the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and the Glasgow International Arena, and of course Scotstoun Stadium in my constituency of Glasgow West.
Secondly, Glasgow 2026 will ensure that the games are inclusive and offer opportunities for participation, representation and engagement. With 47 para sport events, Glasgow 2026 will be the largest integrated para sport programme in Commonwealth games history. Moreover, the first medal of the games will be awarded in para powerlifting, making this the first time that a para sport event has opened the medal tally at a Commonwealth games.
Thirdly, Glasgow 2026 is seeking to create a welcoming games in a welcoming city by using the games to bring people across Scotland and the Commonwealth together. This is perfectly evident and noteworthy in the Glasgow 2026 Festival, an exciting 10-week, city-wide initiative, running from 23 July to 9 August. It comprises more than 150 free events, ranging from art exhibitions and cultural events to opportunities to participate in sport and workshops across Glasgow. My constituency will host a number of events: a 3x3 basketball tournament in Mansfield Park in Partick, a five-day children’s summer camp at Drumchapel Tennis Club, a family fun day at the Donald Dewar centre, and a Commonwealth community festival organised by Halo Arts and Victoria Park Community Trust.
Finally, in taking on this challenge, Glasgow 2026 Ltd, the organising company established to stage the event in partnership with Commonwealth Sport and Commonwealth Games Scotland, is seeking to demonstrate that a more sustainable model for the games is possible, while still supporting local economies, tourism and community development. Hopefully, the slightly slimmed-down version of the Commonwealth games on offer this year will ensure the continued viability of such a special event, while still providing an exciting and diverse programme of sport.
As I have said, Glasgow 2026 is using the legacy of facilities built for Glasgow 2014 and aims to create a series of different legacies this time. The Commonwealth Sport Foundation, which is the official charity partner of the games, has pledged that all funds raised through Glasgow 2026 will be shared equally between funding sport for development initiatives in the Commonwealth and supporting three city partners in Glasgow: Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity, Scottish Sports Futures, and Team Scotland Youth Trust.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and has contributed so much to the Commonwealth games during her time as a Minister and councillor, and now as a Member of Parliament. She will know that for close to 20 years we have had a Scottish Government who have decimated local government revenue and capital budgets. That has had a significant impact on the fabric of many of our sports facilities and on our wider sports provision. Does she agree that a critical legacy from the games must be a Scottish Government who actually take grassroots sport seriously and support the next generation of athletes?
Patricia Ferguson
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. In fact, one of my bugbears over the years has been that it is far too easy for cash-strapped local authorities to cut back on sport and culture, because they are not part of the statutory services that everyone expects them to deliver. The Scottish Government need to realise that if they are ambitious for Scotland, they need to be ambitious for Scotland’s people. Part of that means making us all more physically active, and to achieve that we need facilities, so I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention.
I recognise that local residents and businesses in my constituency, particularly those near to Scotstoun stadium, will have concerns about possible disruption, which is often associated with large sporting events. I am pleased that the Glasgow 2026 organising body has been engaging with community councils and local residents to understand such concerns, and to seek to minimise disruption as far as possible.
Parking is an issue in the area, so I was pleased to hear that an events permit zone will be in operation, alongside other measures such as defined drop-off and pick-up locations, and the ringfencing of ride-share locations. I am also glad that the organisers have been clear that communications with spectators will provide guidance on local public transport routes and encourage spectators to use them as an alternative to driving to venues.
Furthermore, I encourage residents and businesses in Glasgow West to attend the two “Get Set” hubs in the constituency, in the Annexe Healthy Living Centre on 12 June and at the Heart of Scotstoun on 18 June. These hubs, organised by Glasgow 2026, will allow communities to learn about the games and their local impact, and allow people to ask questions or raise concerns.
There is so much to welcome about these games that it feels a little churlish to mention some of the areas where I feel that things could have been done a little bit better. Those who know Glasgow will appreciate that George Square is the centre point of our city.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that when we raised the issue of George Square at the Scottish Affairs Committee, the organisers of the games had not thought about the problems that the closure of the square would cause for people attending the games?
Patricia Ferguson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the period of the games, George Square will be fenced off and will be a building site; indeed, it has been for some time now. It is the place where Glaswegians traditionally gather to celebrate events—it was where we celebrated London 2012 and Glasgow 2014—so it is disappointing that it will continue to be fenced off until a few weeks after the games have concluded. It seems to me that, with a little bit of extra thought and planning, visitors to our city could have enjoyed George Square in the way that traditionally we always have done. That is a matter of some regret.
My other disappointment is that no terrestrial broadcaster has taken up the opportunity to broadcast the games. They will instead be shown by TNT Sports.
As I said, I do not want to dwell on the negatives. Glasgow 2026 will award 215 gold medals. Visitors, athletes and officials will be supported by 3,000 volunteers, who will be called Glasgow Legends. When I was a volunteer in 2014, they were called Clyde-siders; but whatever they are called, they will make new friends, learn new skills and have an exciting time along the way.
Credit must go to the organising committee, Commonwealth Games Scotland, Glasgow Life and Glasgow City Council, as well as all the sporting organisations involved in delivering this year’s games. Glasgow 2014 was hugely successful, and Glasgow 2026 will have the distinction of heralding in a new version of the games— slimmed down, yes, but just as vibrant, exciting and motivational as the 2022 games.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about inspiration and aspiration. I hope that some of that comes a little south of the border and inspires residents in Carlisle. In areas such as mine, which are a long way from large infrastructure facilities to support sports, grassroots inspiration is key. Does my hon. Friend agree that these games offer an opportunity to inspire the hopes and dreams of people not just in Glasgow and Scotland, but in communities like mine in Carlisle?
Patricia Ferguson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth is that it reaches out, and the Commonwealth Games Council and Commonwealth Games Federation have always been good at doing that. The games will be important for Carlisle and Glasgow—maybe the answer is to twin our two cities. As one of the closest cities to Carlisle, Glasgow does have something to offer in that regard. It may not always have been the case historically that people in Carlisle have welcomed people from Scotland coming across the border, but we can leave all that in the past, as we look to the future to ensure that we learn lessons and take that forward.
Although these games will be slimmed down, they will be vibrant, exciting and motivational, just like all the games before them. I hope that everyone involved—visitors, athletes, spectators, family members, Glaswegians, and people from Carlisle or anywhere else in the country—has a wonderful time in Glasgow. I hope, too, that the model for these games might inspire places like Carlisle to consider taking on games, perhaps in conjunction with other local authorities, because this version is much more affordable and will hopefully ensure that sustainability that we all hope for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for bringing this issue to our attention. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am confident she will respond in a positive way, giving the encouragement the hon. Lady needs. I do not doubt for a second that that is her nature. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister in his place. He has a deep interest in all things to do with sport, so that is more encouragement for the hon. Lady. I also see the Lib Dem spokesperson in place, who has been a dear friend for many years.
Why does it mean so much to me, as the MP for Strangford, to see Glasgow host these games? We can see the potential that the hon. Lady referred to in her last couple of sentences. Also, I am keen on speak on this because of the strong historical links between Glasgow and our capital of Belfast. The hon. Lady’s colleagues are here in some numbers—I am not sure that there are any Scottish MPs left in the Chamber; they are nearly all here, as they should be, to support her. I say in all honesty and sincerity that I much enjoy the friendship of my Scottish colleagues—my Gaelic cousins. I do that for a number of reasons. I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands in Scotland, so the Gaelic blood they have in their systems is the same as I have in mine. Of course, we are only a short distance from each other—I would say just a stone’s throw; you would need strong arms, but it is not too far away. In our blood we have the Scottish traits, cultures and interests. We have the pipes, but maybe not the dancing—if anybody ever saw me dancing, it would be scary. We also have the thriftiness that the Scots have. They certainly gave it to me, because we look after our money in a very kind and powerful way.
The Glasgow Commonwealth games take place in just over six weeks, with the games this year focused on innovation. The hon. Member for Glasgow West set the scene incredibly well. I want to highlight a unique opportunity. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) suggested that Carlisle is close, but I tell her what: we are closer. I say that honestly. We have a chance to strengthen co-operation between Glasgow and Belfast and maximise the benefits for the wider UK economy. Belfast is strategically placed to be a support location for the games due to the transport and economic links between the two cities.
The Commonwealth teams who are coming have probably all picked their places to stay by now, but we are not too far away. Belfast has already been recognised as capable of hosting major sporting events, as it was selected to accommodate the 2028 UEFA Euros. Although that did not happen due to extenuating circumstances, it demonstrated recognition of Northern Ireland’s capability to hold these large-scale events.
Belfast could be used to accommodate visitors to the games, who would only be a short distance from Glasgow. There are many hotels in Belfast and elsewhere that could provide hundreds of rooms to accommodate them. The city is well positioned to take the pressure off Glasgow’s infrastructure by hosting media, officials, spectators and teams. There are excellent transport links between the two cities, with daily flights and regular ferries. In particular, Northern Ireland has the facilities to support athletes’ preparation for the games, and could even hold selected sporting events—side events would perhaps be the better way of putting it. That would further reduce pressure on Glasgow’s infrastructure while extending the economic benefits.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow West and those who have not considered it that there is an opportunity to utilise Bangor’s Olympic-standard swimming pool. It is a 10-lane, 50-metre pool with two submersible booms and floating floors to facilitate full international long and short-course competitions The pool was specifically developed to support Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth-level competitors, and it is already used for national elite competitions; it could facilitate training for the Glasgow Commonwealth games as well
Although Glasgow did not report being overwhelmed by the influx of visitors during the 2014 Commonwealth games, the incoming 2026 games have been prepared for at much shorter notice. Hopefully, the potential for those who will visit will be exceptional and boost the economy in Scotland. The originally proposed host had to withdraw due to increasing costs, leaving Glasgow only two years to finalise the arrangements. Partnering with Belfast as a support for the games could demonstrate what a sustainable model for the games looks like in the future, when the costs will be even greater and we may need to spread them a wee bit further to make the games more sustainable and ensure that they continue to unite the Commonwealth nations.
I always think that, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we in Northern Ireland and our Scottish cousins—our Gaelic cousins—should play together in every way. No SNP colleagues are here to tell us that they may have a different opinion, but I am a great and proud member of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who loves all the people of this great nation, particularly the Scottish people. I believe that work can and should take place between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the rising tide of the Commonwealth games lifts the ships not only in Scotland but in Strangford lough in Northern Ireland.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this debate. A wonderful servant of the people of Glasgow, she is the embodiment of Glaswegian and Scottish values of public service that are shared across our family of nations.
As a Glasgow MP I welcome the Government’s support for bringing the games to Glasgow and the cross-party support for the games in the House, in Holyrood and in the city council chambers. I welcome all the work that has been done to bring the games to Glasgow. My constituency of Glasgow East is at the centre of the Commonwealth games 2026, together with Glasgow West. Its venues include the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome, Glasgow International Arena and the Tollcross International Swimming Centre. The games in 2014 were a great success and our games this year will be too because my home, Glasgow, is a city of warmth and hospitality. A friend is someone anywhere in Glasgow and a stranger is a friend yet to be made.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: Glasgow has always been known as a friendly city. Does he agree that volunteers play a fantastic role in welcoming visitors to the city for our sporting events, such as the Commonwealth games and the 2023 UCI cycling world championships?
John Grady
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The number of volunteers speaks eloquently to the generosity of spirit in Glasgow, across Scotland and across our family of nations. We are excited to welcome great sportspeople. I look forward to the return of a great Australian swimmer, Lakeisha Patterson, who is one of the world’s most decorated para swimmers. Some of her most notable swims took place at Tollcross: she made her international debut there when she was just 15, winning bronze, and she won gold at the world championships in Glasgow in 2015.
My constituency has long been a centre of sporting excellence. Sir Kenny Dalglish comes from Dalmarnock in my constituency. I think every hon. Member in the Chamber sends him our best wishes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Sir Kenny was a brilliant footballer who could sign Peter Beardsley, Ray Houghton, John Barnes and John Aldridge, then come on as a substitute and show them exactly how the game should be played. For his courage in the face of the terror of Hillsborough and all that he did, with courage, dignity and love, for the Hillsborough families, Sir Kenny is admired greatly as one of Glasgow’s finest sons and, I believe, one of Liverpool’s finest adopted sons.
One of our most notable clubs in Glasgow is Shettleston Harriers. On the doors I meet many enthusiasts for that wonderful club, founded in 1904. One of its most famous athletes is Lachie Stewart, who won the 10,000 metres gold in the 1970 Edinburgh commonwealth games. The club does wonderful work with young people in my area.
I want Scotland to do brilliantly in the games—of course I do. I wish every member of Team Scotland the best of luck. I cannot mention each team member—I might get into trouble—but I make special mention of Evi Mackie, who is in the swimming squad and trains at Lanark amateur swimming club. I am glad to speak of such a talented sportsperson because her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is a Government Whip and by tradition cannot speak in this place.
In the Commonwealth charter, the core Commonwealth principles include mutual respect and inclusiveness. The games are an opportunity to reaffirm those shared principles. A good place to start is by expressing our immense gratitude to the people from the Commonwealth who have made their homes in the United Kingdom. They have served our communities in our hospitals, in schools, in business and in so many ways. We are richer because our brothers and sisters from the Commonwealth have come to live with us and made their homes with us. Reaffirming our shared values of mutual respect and inclusiveness means that we must do much more to confront and root out racism. It is neither Scottish nor British, and it has no place anywhere in our family of nations, but we must recognise that that poison continues to infect our society and our politics. Rooting out racism is an urgent task for all of us. A society free from racism and a society of mutual respect and inclusiveness is one where we are all richer.
The games are an opportunity for us to celebrate our shared humanity and our equality. There is no better place to do so than in Glasgow, the home of the first black international footballer, Andrew Watson. His last game was in my constituency, at the first Hampden Park in Crosshill. I am pleased to say that Scotland won 5-1. I hope for similar results in the world cup and the Commonwealth games. I say to all our brothers and sisters visiting from the Commonwealth: welcome to Glasgow; we cannot wait to see you.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to contribute to this important debate on the return of the Commonwealth games to Glasgow secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson).
The Commonwealth games have always been more than a sporting competition. They are a celebration of friendship, community, aspiration and achievement across the Commonwealth family. That is why the decision to bring the games back to Glasgow is such welcome news, not only for our city but for communities across Scotland and the UK. Glasgow has shown the world how to host a major sporting event. In 2014, the city delivered what many still regard as one of the finest Commonwealth games ever staged. The venues were world class, the volunteers were outstanding, the atmosphere was unforgettable and the legacy continues to be felt today.
The return of the games is a vote of confidence in Glasgow. It is a recognition of the city’s experience, its sporting infrastructure and, most importantly, its people. It will bring visitors, investment and international attention, and support jobs, tourism, hospitality and local businesses, but the impact of the games will extend far beyond Glasgow’s city boundaries.
In constituencies such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun, communities have long embraced the values of sporting competition. Young people across east Ayrshire will watch athletes competing for Scotland, the home nations and countries across the Commonwealth. They will see role models who prove that success is not reserved for a privileged few. They will see ordinary people achieving extraordinary things through hard work, determination and dedication. Every sports coach who gives up their evenings, every volunteer who runs a club and every parent who drives a child to training sessions understands the power of sport to change lives. Sport teaches discipline, resilience and teamwork. It teaches young people how to win with humility and lose with dignity.
East Ayrshire has its own proud Commonwealth games story. Through the East Ayrshire talented athletes support programme, hundreds of athletes have been helped to pursue excellence. Over 14 years, more than 700 local athletes have received support, including six special Olympians, two Olympians and two Commonwealth games medallists who have represented their community with distinction. I pay particular tribute to Peter Kirkbride of Kilmarnock. Peter won a silver medal for Scotland in the men’s 94 kg weightlifting competition at the Delhi Commonwealth games in 2010. His achievement remains a source of enormous pride for east Ayrshire, and demonstrates what can be achieved through dedication, perseverance and talent. I also recognise Claire Johnston, who won a bronze medal for Scotland in lawn bowls at the Gold Coast Commonwealth games in 2018. Her success, alongside her team mate Lesley Doig, added another chapter to east Ayrshire’s proud sporting history, and showed that athletes from our communities can compete and succeed on the international stage.
The Commonwealth games have a unique place in our national life because they bring together nations and territories from every corner of the globe in a spirt of friendly competition. They celebrate diversity while emphasising our shared humanity. It is fitting therefore that they remember Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose commitment to the Commonwealth was one of the defining features of her remarkable reign. Across seven decades, she championed the values that sit at the heart of the Commonwealth movement: service, unity and mutual respect. Her dedication helped to strengthen the bonds between nations and peoples, and her legacy remains woven into the story of the Commonwealth games themselves. As Glasgow prepares once again to welcome athletes from around the world, it is worth reflecting on how proud Her late Majesty was of Scotland’s achievements in hosting international events and bringing people together through sport.
The return of the games offers us another opportunity to build a lasting legacy. We should use this moment to encourage greater participation in sport, particularly among young people. We should strengthen grassroots clubs, improve access to facilities and ensure that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that sport can bring. The true measure of success will not simply be what happens in the stadiums or on the medal table; it will be whether more young people take up sport, more communities feel connected and more future champions emerge from places like Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
The Commonwealth games remind us that talent is everywhere, even if opportunity is not. Our job is to ensure that opportunity reaches every community. The return of the Commonwealth games is good for our economy, good for our communities and good for the next generation. Most of all, it is a chance to inspire young people, not only across East Ayrshire but across the whole of Scotland and the Commonwealth, to believe that, with hard work and determination, they too can achieve greatness.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. She is a consistent and effective advocate for Glasgow and for sport in Scotland, and her contribution in this House and elsewhere in public life has undoubtedly helped to shape the strong sporting and events culture that Glasgow rightly prides itself on today.
This debate goes to the heart of something that I have spoken about in this place before: how we use opportunity to deliver growth that is not only strong but shared. In my constituency of Glasgow North sit three of the key venues for the Glasgow Commonwealth games 2026: the OVO Hydro, the SEC Centre and the SEC Armadillo, which together form the Scottish Event Campus—a central part of Glasgow’s economic life for over 40 years. The SEC is not simply a venue; it is an essential piece of economic infrastructure for the city. It has developed into one of Europe’s leading event destinations, supporting over 5,000 jobs, generating £557 million each year for Glasgow’s economy and attracting more than 2 million visitors annually.
Major events such as the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games are not simply important occasions; they are economic instruments that can, when embedded within a wider strategy, drive growth. Every major event hosted in Glasgow—whether it is COP26, an international aquaculture conference or a Charli XCX concert—brings with it not just visitors but investment, knowledge exchange and long-term connections. The Commonwealth games bring all that together at scale.
In this debate we are rightly focusing on the Commonwealth games, but it would be remiss of me as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events not to highlight the consistent economic benefit of the many business events and conferences that take place in the SEC and elsewhere in the city on a regular basis. It is important that the UK Government and the Scottish Government support not only the Commonwealth games and other important sporting and cultural events, but the hugely significant business events sector.
In 2026, more than 3,000 athletes from 74 nations will come to Glasgow, with the SEC hosting the opening ceremony and the basketball, wheelchair basketball, bowls, para bowls, boxing, judo, netball, weightlifting and para powerlifting events. The fact that so much activity will take place in my constituency illustrates both the scale of the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with it. Today, Glasgow stands as one of the UK’s most important city regions, with world-class universities, advanced industries and a thriving cultural sector. However, as I have said in the House before, it is also a city still marked by inequality, where growth exists alongside deprivation and where opportunity has not been felt across all communities.
This is a key test for the 2026 games. Success cannot be judged solely by attendance figures or broadcast reach; it must instead be measured by whether the economic benefits are felt across the entire city region, particularly by those communities who have waited longest for change. That means linking the games more directly to local employment and skills, and I welcome the work that the games’ organisers have done on that. It is also important that local businesses are able to participate in supply chains, and that we invest in the necessary connectivity so that people across the region can access the opportunities created.
The reality is that economic activity in Glasgow now operates at a regional scale, with major events intersecting with transport systems, labour markets and investment decisions extending well beyond the city boundary. That is why we need a more strategic and long-term approach to major events such as Glasgow 2026—one that plans ahead, aligns activity with economic priorities and co-ordinates delivery across the region. It is also why I have consistently argued for greater devolution to the Glasgow city region. This is not about constitutional preference but about practical delivery: local people are best placed to ensure that opportunities such as the Commonwealth games translate into tangible outcomes for our communities.
In that context, Government support must go beyond the successful delivery of the event itself. It must recognise the SEC as a strategic national asset, align the games with wider priorities such as tourism, trade and investment, and support a long-term plan that builds on Glasgow’s proven strengths in hosting major events. The 2026 Commonwealth games represent the next stage in that journey: an opportunity to reinforce the city’s global reputation, drive further economic growth and, importantly, ensure that that growth is shared more widely across the city region, including by the communities I represent in Glasgow North. What matters now is that we match that opportunity with an even greater level of long-term ambition. If we do, Glasgow 2026 will be not simply a one-off great occasion, but a lasting legacy of change for the Glasgow city region.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this debate on the forthcoming Commonwealth games in our home city.
In just a matter of weeks, Glasgow will once again host the Commonwealth games. The resounding success of our 2014 games put Glasgow at the forefront of people’s minds when a location needed to be found for 2026. I am proud that Glasgow stepped up, and I am confident that the games will offer a blueprint for the future, as we approach the 100th anniversary of the first Commonwealth games in 1930.
One of the many innovative parts of the 2026 games is that they are being funded by a mixture of compensation, grant funding and commercial income, resulting in a smaller-scale event with a condensed sporting programme, and, most importantly, no additional public money will be spent. Nevertheless, after visiting the Glasgow 2026 headquarters on Bothwell Street, where I met chief executive Phil Batty and chair George Black, I am convinced that the 2026 games will be a world-class display, thanks in no small part to the substantial public investment that was made in advance of the 2014 games, including for the purpose-built Emirates arena, as it was known, which was commissioned and built by Labour-run Glasgow city council. I am filled with hope at the prospect of the games offering a new way forward, encouraging others to adopt our approach of renovation and reuse.
Often referred to as “the friendly games”, this sporting event has been, and can continue to be, an opportunity to bring nations and people together in a spirit of friendly competition. I have no doubt that that spirit will endure at these games. However, less positive differences between the 2026 and the 2014 games will also be on show to competitors and spectators. In the past decade, Glasgow has been subjected to repeated budget cuts, which will be all too visible as we welcome the world back to our streets, with a less vibrant city centre, poor and increasingly expensive public transport and a maze of road closures. Perhaps the most striking change of all is George Square, which featured prominently in the 2014 opening ceremony. That landmark remains under construction and closed off to the public, with calls for its renovation to be expedited for the games having been ignored.
I hope that, just as Glasgow has risen to the challenge of hosting the Commonwealth games once again, the city council and Scottish Government will use the short time we have left between now and the start of the games to recognise the urgency of restoring Glasgow’s status as the world-class destination that visitors and residents expect. That is a legacy that many Glaswegians would be glad to see delivered.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. It is also an honour to have the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), respond to this debate. She knows Glasgow well and was generous with her time when she was last in the city, visiting Crookston castle, the Nethercraigs sports complex—which is not a Commonwealth games venue, unfortunately, but perhaps next time—and the Pakistani Street Food café. I believe that she is due in Glasgow South West tomorrow, so it is wonderful that she is responding to the debate.
As well as congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate, it is important to thank her, as other Members have done, for her long record championing Glasgow and sport. As the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in the Scottish Labour Government, she helped to lay the important foundations of what we celebrate today—the ambition, the infrastructure and the belief that Glasgow could stand on the world stage and deliver, all of which was seeded during her tenure as a Minister.
The 2014 Commonwealth games showed what Glasgow was capable of. Under a Labour council that understood what sport could do, and what it could unleash for communities, the city welcomed athletes and visitors from across the globe, and by wide consensus, it did not disappoint. The legacy of those games was lasting, not only in the venues and infrastructure but in the civic pride felt by the volunteers and citizens, and by the young people who watched those games and dared to dream to become athletes themselves. In that sense, Glasgow 2026 does not start from scratch; it stands on the shoulders of giants like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West—that is a very special thing indeed.
These games are also personal to me and my own Commonwealth story. In 1963, my father came to this country by road from Pakistan, a proud Commonwealth nation. I grew up in the city and was trained as a surgeon by many Commonwealth citizens. I now have the singular honour of being the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, perhaps the most diverse constituency in Scotland, and one that has been shaped by its many Commonwealth connections from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
I am confident that when the athletes from the 74 nations touch down in Glasgow later this year, they will feel at home, with smells and languages quite familiar to them, thanks to the diverse communities that occupy Glasgow. I hope that, in some sense, they will feel at home during their time here, as one Commonwealth family bound by the shared values, histories and stories that we all carry.
It is particularly important to emphasise those shared values today, because last night we saw some violence on Buchanan Street in Glasgow, under the watchful eye of the statue of Donald Dewar, the father of our nation. That underlines that Glasgow is not immune to the challenges of social cohesion—or, indeed, prejudice. It is therefore timely to remind ourselves that, as a Commonwealth family, those shared values must come to the fore, and we as Members of this place all have a responsibility to articulate those values in these times of stress and turbulence.
When telling the story of the 2026 Commonwealth games and how they came to Glasgow, it is important to re-emphasise that when Victoria withdrew, the games were in danger of fizzling out. In fact, there was even a danger that Commonwealth games as a concept could come to an end. However, Glasgow, the UK Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stepped forward to ensure that the games can once again be celebrated, and that our Commonwealth family can celebrate, too.
Finally, the King’s baton, with which the games will be opened, was handcrafted by GalGael, a social enterprise based in Govan in Glasgow South West, using reclaimed wood from Pollok Country Park. I do not think there is a better symbol of Glasgow than Glasgow timber being handcrafted by Glaswegians and travelling to every part of our Commonwealth ahead of these games. Glasgow has earned this moment, and I am confident that it will make the most of it.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As colleagues have rehearsed very well, with her wealth of knowledge and her experience of the Commonwealth games, she brings great value to the debate.
As part of my West Dunbartonshire constituency falls within Glasgow, and with my home town of Clydebank bordering the city, this is a hugely significant event for the communities I represent—one that I hope will inspire the next generation and showcase the very best of our area to the world. When the future of the Commonwealth games was thrown into doubt after Australia withdrew from hosting them, I was delighted that Glasgow stepped up. I am proud that our nation has helped secure the future of one of the world’s greatest sporting events. This summer, the eyes of 74 nations and territories will be on Scotland.
Although it is a shame that fewer sports will be represented this year, I am keen to see how this leaner, more sustainable model works in practice. The traditional model of hosting major multi-sports events is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Glasgow’s approach will make full use of existing world-class venues, established infrastructure and the expertise gained from the hugely successful 2014 games. If the Commonwealth games are to thrive and survive, they must be accessible, not only to athletes but to potential host nations and cities. If the model succeeds, Glasgow may once again show the way forward. That could be the defining legacy of the 2026 games.
That legacy will differ from 2014. The last games left Scotland with outstanding facilities, which have been mentioned, such as the Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Glasgow International Arena and, of course, the athletes’ village, which became much-needed social housing. Those are tangible benefits that continue to serve communities today.
These Commonwealth games are so important for young people in my constituency. For many, this may be the first time that they see world-class sport in person. We should not underestimate the impact of that.
Jim Shannon
We have referred to sports that will not be at the games for all different reasons. We in Northern Ireland seem to excel at boxing and shooting. I am not quite sure why, but whatever the reason, there will be no shooting sports at the Commonwealth games. Does the hon. Member feel that should be addressed? We have asked for that before, and it has not happened. Maybe it is time to get it right.
Douglas McAllister
I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention, and his point is well made. Glasgow saved the games and we had to use the infrastructure that was there. Perhaps when he secures a future games for Strangford, they will highlight shooting and boxing. We are happy to support a bid from him.
I know the effect that the games can have. I experienced it myself. I remember my parents taking me to the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh in 1986. Some hon. Members may be surprised to hear that I was a decent athlete back in my day—I know it is hard to believe. [Interruption.] The laughter was too loud there! I still vividly remember the excitement and inspiration I felt as a young person watching athletes compete—including my sporting hero, Steve Cram. That experience stayed with me. It made excellence feel achievable. Today’s young people from West Dunbartonshire and communities across Scotland deserve the same opportunity. They deserve the chance to watch elite athletes at the highest level, and to imagine themselves one day on that track, in that pool or on that podium.
However, I have one main concern: the lack of free live television coverage. With coverage of the games now behind a paywall on TNT Sports and HBO Max, many people risk being excluded. If we want these games to inspire the next generation, they must be accessible to everyone to view. That decision limits the reach and impact of the games at precisely the moment we should be encouraging wider participation and engagement.
I also want to know what my constituents in West Dunbartonshire will gain from these games. How will local communities be involved? How will young people be engaged? How will we maximise opportunities for participation, volunteering and sporting development long after the closing ceremony? I hope those important questions remain central to planning and delivery over the coming weeks and months.
Despite those concerns, my message today is one of optimism. I love the Commonwealth games. I believe in the values they represent, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed): international co-operation, inclusion and friendship. Yes, these games may be smaller and look slightly different from previous years, but they also represent innovation, resilience and a determination to ensure that this great sporting tradition survives and thrives.
Glasgow saved these games when their future was uncertain. Now we can demonstrate a model that could secure their future for decades to come. I look forward to seeing Glasgow once again welcome the Commonwealth, and I hope that our young people, from West Dunbartonshire and across the nation, will be inspired.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. As the Chief Whip of my party, I seldom get the opportunity to do so, but when the opportunity arose to talk about the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow, I was keen to participate. I assure Members—just in case there is a pile-on—that I may be an adopted east coaster, but my roots are in the west.
I have cared about sport all my life. I was the first female director of the Camanachd Association, the governing body for shinty, for two years between 2017 and 2019. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about shooting; I think it is unlikely that we will see shinty in any international context any time soon, but it is important for bringing communities together. Sport does that in a very powerful way across ages and generations.
I read the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee—I congratulate the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), on securing this debate. It was interesting to read Billy Garrett from Glasgow Life reporting that, when Victoria stepped back from supporting the games, Glasgow was quickly thought of as somewhere that could be asked to step up, and indeed it was already thinking of doing so. That demonstrates the high regard in which Glasgow 2014 and its delivery was held, but I think it says something about Glasgow as well. “People Make Glasgow” is the best strapline for a city I have ever heard—closely followed by “Glasgow’s miles better”, but maybe not quite as iconic as “What’s it called? Cumbernauld!”
We are going to be seeing 10 days of games, with 215 medals and 3,000 athletes from 74 countries. As the Member for North East Fife, it would be remiss of me not to mention Finlay Allan of Cupar, who is participating for Scotland in the judo. I wish him very well. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) in relation to the fact that we are going to be bringing together in Glasgow young people from 74 countries. At a time when it feels that we are becoming more insular, both globally and community-wise, such events bring young people—specifically, those younger than me—together. The power of that must not be underestimated. I certainly remember the emotion of watching 2012, 2022 in Birmingham and 2014 in Glasgow. To quote the late, great Stanley Baxter in “Parliamo Glasgow”, I am sure they’re going to have a helluva time.
Thinking about funding, there is no doubt that what we are seeing, and the fact that Glasgow has been able to step in, is a result of the down payment in 2014 and the investment that was made then. The hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned Tollcross, where I have spent a lot of time; I had a sister who swam competitively at junior level for Scotland, so I spent a lot of time in swimming pools. Those community assets, and the power of a venue such as Tollcross to bring international swimming to Scotland, must not be underestimated.
We welcome the funding from Commonwealth Sport and from commercial funders and partnerships, the contingency funding that the UK Government have offered in relation to security, and the £150,000 that the Scottish Government are putting forward for Scotland House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about connectivity and economic value. I understand that the £150 million of economic value that it is estimated will be delivered by these Commonwealth Games is the same amount as the money that is being put into them. If that is not a return on investment, I do not know what is. That connectivity, and bringing people together, is really important. It is important for sporting events to demonstrate that economic impact.
I should declare an interest in that I sit on the Links Trust, which runs the Old Course and all the golf courses in St Andrews. Recent research by the trust demonstrated £300 million-worth of economic impact that those courses in St Andrews bring to Scotland, but as we look to hosting the Open next year, we know that connectivity and getting people to our beautiful part of Scotland comes at a cost.
The reimagining of the Commonwealth games is to be welcomed, not just because it will enable them to be delivered within the time available, but because—I was very encouraged to read this in the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee—it looks like it is encouraging other countries to re-engage with hosting the games in the future, which is very important. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Strangford about the sports that will be included. I am going to say something very controversial for somebody who represents St Andrews, but I have my doubts about golf being in the Olympics, in the same way as I do about tennis. If winning a gold medal at the Olympics is not the pinnacle of the sport— I would argue that for both of those sports, it is not; that is winning a grand slam or the Open—I question whether it should be in the Olympic repertoire. We have to think from the athletes’ perspective about what is seen as the pinnacle of their sport. There is no doubt that for some athletes whose sports potentially will not be represented at these games, participation in the Commonwealth games would be the pinnacle of their sport. I look forward to the emails I am going to receive from constituents about that controversial view.
I will conclude by talking about volunteering and looking forward to some legislation that is passing through Parliament. My mum is a proud Glaswegian and, like the hon. Member for Glasgow West, volunteered during the Commonwealth games in 2014. We should not underestimate the value of volunteering, not just in what it brings to the event, but in the relationships, friendships and community that it builds afterwards. My mum certainly still meets some of the people she worked with during that time. My husband also worked in spectator safety, so as a family we felt a real sense of pride about 2014 from our place on the east coast.
The Sporting Events Bill was recently introduced in the other place. My party wants to see in the Bill a bidding framework to allow the Government to bring even more world-class competitions to the UK. I think we are all in agreement about their value—not only in bringing people in to see high-class sport, but their economic benefit, which has been well utilised and articulated by these Commonwealth games. We also want to see in the Bill an accommodation and infrastructure strategy. I would hate to think that concerns about George Square and other parts of the city might detract from what will be an incredible event, but it is important that when we bring these events to our cities and communities, we ensure that people can go about their day-to-day lives as well. I hope that the Government will give that consideration, either in the other place or in the Commons.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas.
The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events.
The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too.
Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games.
For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on.
Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one.
We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future.
As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world.
Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster.
As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too.
Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous.
We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I am really pleased to respond to this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing today’s debate, and on all her hard work and representation. It is brilliant not only to set out what the Government are doing to support Glasgow 2026, but to celebrate the games and to look ahead to what will be a fantastic celebration of sport, the Commonwealth, Glasgow, Scotland and the UK. Before I go into some of those issues, I will respond to some points that hon. Members made, and I will address other points as I go through my speech.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend set the scene very powerfully. She spoke about the 3,000 athletes who will take part and mentioned that Glasgow is the third city in history to host the games twice. She also referred to the pre-existing venues and the scale of the para games, as well as to the fact that we are a world leader in sport and that the first medal at Glasgow 2026 will be awarded in para sport. A number of Members rightly pointed out the range of community events.
My hon. Friend and other Members made really important points about George Square. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong champion of his local area and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who is the chair of the all-party group for events, made some really important points about major events and their wider impact. When I appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee just over a month ago, I was pleased to announce the Government’s intention to have a major events strategy.
On that subject, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), asked some specific questions about the Sporting Events Bill, which we have introduced in the other place. I believe that we will reach out to the hon. Lady about it, and I am very happy to meet her, and indeed, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to address some of the specific points that she put to me about the Bill.
This debate is especially well timed as I am due to travel to Glasgow tomorrow to meet the company organising the games and to hear at first hand how the planning and delivery are progressing. It has been wonderful to support the games personally as Sports Minister, whether through my regular meetings with Commonwealth games organising committee and the Scottish Government, or through the excellent baton relay at Buckingham Palace—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) spoke powerfully about the importance of the baton, and it was a delight to spend some time with him in his constituency last summer—or through marking the games at Edinburgh Castle a few months ago.
A little over a decade ago, Glasgow delivered a fantastic Commonwealth games and now the city has another chance to showcase itself to the world; many Members have spoken about that today. As we saw with Glasgow 2014 and Birmingham 2022, and as many hon. Members pointed out, the games bring world-class sport to our communities, delivering the special heart-stopping moments that only live sport can deliver.
At the 2022 games, I had the great experience of attending the diving finals at the then new Sandwell Aquatics Centre and seeing our country take home medals. It was a particular delight to go to that event, as it was just down the road from where I grew up; I attended with Lord McConnell, who sits in the other place.
The shadow Secretary of State was Sports Minister at that time, as he said, and he showed a commendable commitment to the games then. In his contribution today, he rightly pointed out that the 2026 games will be the first under His Majesty’s reign. The hon. Member’s speech clearly illustrated how he wants these games to be as successful as possible, and I know that he is a huge supporter. He put a couple of specific questions to me, which I will answer as I progress through my speech.
The games generate significant wider economic and social benefits. They bring communities together, galvanise volunteers and support local jobs and supply chains. Last week, we marked Volunteers’ Week, and I pay tribute to the volunteers who are the lifeblood of so much of our sport in the UK. They help to deliver grassroots sport up and down the country every single day, and when it comes to major sporting events, they are a vital and joyful part of the experience.
Ten world-class sports across four world-class venues, 3,000 athletes, 4,000 volunteers, the largest ever para sport programme at a games, a vibrant cultural festival and a city capitalising on the legacy of 2014—we are all looking forward to the show that Glasgow and Scotland will put on. More broadly, the games continue to be a key pathway for elite athletes, a wonderful event for spectators and a fantastic opportunity to bring together the Commonwealth family of nations in a positive and impactful way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said, live sport inspires more people to get active than anything else. Glasgow 2026 is seeking to adopt a new approach to legacy and will bring benefits to communities and individuals across Glasgow and Scotland more broadly.
Some points were put to me about grassroots sport, which is a passion of mine and of this Government. We are investing £400 million over the coming years, including £8 million in Scotland this year and £3.4 million in sporting projects in Glasgow since 2024. Inactivity is a story of inequality, which this Government are committed to tackling. Major events such as the Commonwealth games play a hugely important role in that.
When the Australian state of Victoria announced that it was pulling out of hosting the 2026 games in July 2023, the future of the event looked increasingly uncertain. We were at risk of losing a wonderful sporting occasion that brings nations together and provides an opportunity outside of the Olympics, Paralympics and respective sports’ world championships for athletics to shine on the world stage. That is why I am truly delighted that the UK Government stepped up and got behind Glasgow 2026. I am proud of the role we have played in making the commitments required to support the Glasgow project to go ahead and, by extension, helping to secure the future of the games. I pay tribute to Ian Reid and his team at Commonwealth Games Scotland, and I acknowledge the work of the Scottish Government and all partners involved, which has made Glasgow 2026 a possibility.
The Government’s support spans a number of areas and was critical in ensuring that Glasgow 2026 became a reality. While the Glasgow 2026 model is predicated on private income, the UK Government were pleased to be able to help the games through a commitment of up to £2.3 million of contingent funding to support the safety and security of the event. That was a key commitment that helped to unlock the original agreement for Glasgow to host the games.
We have provided support in other ways, too. I am pleased that the Home Office has worked closely with event organisers to ensure that bespoke visa processes have been established for the games family, ensuring that the games will benefit from smooth and streamlined visa processes that are appropriately tailored to the needs of athletes and officials while maintaining effective border security and immigration controls.
Operationally, teams at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom have worked closely with the organising company to ensure that the radio spectrum frequencies to be used at the games are available and overseen effectively, supporting the essential communications behind the scenes that enable these major sporting events to go ahead smoothly and safely. Alongside all that, my Department has directly provided a small amount of staffing to support the organising company, helping to ensure that the games are effectively integrating with the Departments and teams in Whitehall that they need to.
As a Government, we have stepped up in the games’ hour of need and not only made sure that Glasgow has what it needs to deliver a safe, sustainable and world-class event, but sought to maximise the opportunities that it presents to the UK. I would also like to reflect on the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regarding racism in sport.
John Grady
Since I spoke, the police have explained more clearly some of the stuff that happened last night. Glasgow central mosque sits in the heart of my seat, and is somewhere that many Muslim brothers and sisters go to pray, as I am sure will visitors in Commonwealth games teams. That mosque had to be locked last night. People were attacked in the streets of Glasgow because of their colour. Police were attacked. I condemn this. Will the Minister join me in condemning it?
Stephanie Peacock
Of course I join my hon. Friend in condemning the appalling violence, and my heart goes out to all those involved. We must stand against this across the House.
Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils the values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror on our society, reflecting our strength and, at times, our challenges.
Dr Ahmed
To develop the point made by my dear hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), I have been worshipping at Glasgow central mosque since it opened in 1984, and it is timely to remind hon. Members that the mosque was at the epicentre of the last Commonwealth games in Glasgow. As hon. Members will appreciate, a number of athletes were coming from Muslim-majority Commonwealth countries, and it was Ramadan at the time. The mosque became an epicentre for many athletes; it was where they first and foremost found the community of Glasgow. I am also shocked to hear that last night the mosque had to be closed, but I am deeply confident that, in the course of the games, the people of Glasgow will show themselves to be the welcoming, diverse community that they have always been and always will be. Does the Minister agree that the people do make Glasgow?
Stephanie Peacock
I do agree, and I share my hon. Friend’s shock. I am shocked and appalled. The Government’s stance remains unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society, and it has no place in our sport either.
Let me turn to the issue of accessibility. I recognise and understand the disappointment that many will feel regarding Commonwealth Sport’s decision not to partner with a free-to-air broadcaster for live coverage of the games. TNT Sports has partnered with one of our public service broadcasters, Channel 5, to ensure that the highlights of the games will be available on free-to-air television. The deal provides the opportunity for a wider audience to enjoy moments that matter in the games, but I have heard the points made regarding the BBC. I am sure that the BBC will have heard the points made by the shadow Minister and others, which I will relay to the Media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Ultimately, all sports rights holders and UK broadcasters are operationally and editorially independent of Government.
Glasgow 2026 will be an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the unique power that live sport has to bring us together and will deliver a real impact. Once again, Glasgow and the nation are on the biggest stage, and the city’s MPs have demonstrated the power of their city today. I congratulate Phil Batty, George Black and all the organisers who are working tirelessly to ensure that Glasgow is a success that showcases the very best of sport and brings about a new era for the Commonwealth games. I look forward to a brilliant event and a bright future for the games movement. I thank and pay tribute to the athletes, coaches, volunteers, organisers and everyone else who makes it possible.
Patricia Ferguson
I will not be able to respond to all the points that colleagues have made in the time available, but I am grateful to everyone for their speeches, which have all been interesting and informative. They give us all food for thought.
The interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) are very important. The scenes last night do not demonstrate Glasgow at their best—I would argue that they do not represent Glasgow at all—but it is important that we do not shy away from them, and that we challenge them. I hope that we will collectively do so.
One of the statistics about sport that has haunted me over the years is that, although boys and girls participate in sport at an equal level up to the age of 11, at the age of 11 girls stop participating in sport at a level that men do not get to until they are aged about 40. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and we can imagine what many of them are, but it is just not good enough.
No matter what successive Governments have done, we have never cracked that very important issue. Physical activity and sport are very important; they are important for women and girls and for men, and they should be important to all of us. If any of us can do anything about that, we should. That is one of the reasons why I think the Commonwealth games not being free to air on one of the terrestrial broadcasters is really detrimental. It is not providing the motivation that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) mentioned, and it is not providing inspiration either.
Stephanie Peacock
I would not ordinarily intervene as the Minister, but I thought that it might be helpful to inform my hon. Friend and the House that I will chair the next meeting of the women’s sport taskforce, which aims to encourage and tackle some of the issues around women’s sport. Indeed, this Government have the ambition to double priority slots for women and girls.
Patricia Ferguson
That is really good news, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will relay that kind of activity to the Scottish Government and encourage them to do more for young women and girls in Scotland. It is very important.
I could not resist the challenge of responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). One of the things I love about the Commonwealth games is that they make a particular point of tailoring the sports featured at individual games, and it varies, to the needs of the competitors. For example, events that are very expensive for participants to take part in tend not to be featured, because many countries in the Commonwealth cannot support that kind of sport. However, shooting and boxing are quite often part of the Commonwealth games. In 2014, we had shooting in Barry Buddon in the north of Scotland, and I remember watching boxing at the games in Melbourne, so those sports are considered for the Commonwealth games. They happen not to be in these games for logistical reasons more than anything else, but the hon. Member should continue to champion them and take them forward.
In my opinion, the good thing about Glasgow 2014 was that it showed not just that Glasgow could host a Commonwealth games, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) suggested, that Glasgow can host events—big events. I cannot remember who it was, but someone also mentioned the UCI championships. We can do those events: we have the infrastructure and we are doing well, but we need to do better.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) suggested, sport has the ability to make us all work together and join together; it brings us all together in common cause. At a time when our country is a little more divided than any of us would like—perhaps the world is too—we need to use events such as the Commonwealth games to show that it does not have to be like that. Indeed, it will not be if the principles and values of the Commonwealth games can be taken forward by everyone involved.
I thank everyone in Glasgow who is working so hard: George Black, Phil Batty, Jon Doig—I will probably miss out some people who I really should mention—Ian Reid and Billy Garrett from Glasgow Life. A whole panoply of people make sure that these games are a success, and I hope that everyone who comes to Glasgow to see them very much enjoys the games and Glasgow too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026.
Myanmar: Human Rights
(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
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Myanmar.
I have not spoken under your chairmanship before, Mr Twigg—it is an honour to do so. I thank the Minister for attending. We have had meetings with his colleague at the Foreign Office, and I know it is an issue of great interest to the Government.
Ukraine, Iran and Sudan have captured the headlines, but Myanmar is the civil war the world has forgotten. I went as Foreign Secretary in 2018, deeply concerned about the genocide of the Rohingya that had happened a year earlier. I was fobbed off by the Tatmadaw, the Burmese army and the Myanmar authorities. But at least we thought the country was taking tentative steps towards democracy, and following extensive engagement, we did manage to get two Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, released after they had reported on the genocide. Then things started going backwards.
In 2021 we had a military coup. Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned, and since then we have had a vicious civil war with appalling human rights abuses by the military dictatorship. Some 7,000 to 8,000 people have been killed, 30,000 have been arbitrarily detained, 40 political parties have been banned, and there are now 14,000 political prisoners, including nearly all the pro-democracy candidates in past elections. There are daily airstrikes on homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, churches and other places of worship. There is arson, torture and sexual violence, and 4 million people displaced from homes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as he is beginning to make a very cogent case about the human rights abuses happening in Myanmar. I intervene because he raised the issue of airstrikes. Since the last sanctions were imposed on Myanmar by the UK 591 days ago, there has been a significant increase in airstrikes by the Burmese military. Does he agree that we need a new round of sanctions, including potentially targeting the military-owned Mytel mobile phone network, as well as vessels and companies identified by Amnesty and Reuters as delivering jet fuel and materials for making explosives, some of it originating in Iran?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted what I was going to say, but I absolutely agree that we have to go further. In terms of the current situation, in nine days’ time, Aung San Suu Kyi will mark her 81st birthday. She has recently moved to house arrest but is still unable to contact her family. We must not forget that life under military rule means no freedom of expression, no free press, no free courts, internet restrictions, sham elections and total bloodshed as the Government conduct a vicious civil war with total impunity when it comes to civilian casualties.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The genocide against the Rohingya Muslims, which has been ongoing for almost a decade, is one of the most horrifying examples of Islamophobia. Does the right hon. Member agree that the UK should join the EU and the USA in imposing sanctions on the military-controlled Myanmar oil and gas enterprises, which is a major source of revenue for the military?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I will respond to that as soon as I have taken the final intervention that I am going to take.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Since the illegal military coup, the junta has executed a brutal, calculated campaign targeting predominantly Christian ethnic regions in Chin, Kayah and Kachin states as well as Sagaing and Yangon. Reports from Open Doors confirmed that historical Christian communities face unprecedented violence, with churches being bombed via indiscriminate military airstrikes. Villages have been razed to the ground and Christian pastors are being unlawfully detained, disappeared or killed. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to do all in their power to support those Christians, as well as Muslims and all those persecuted for their faith in that nation?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have campaigned for many years on freedom of religion and belief, and I agree that what is happening to Christians in Myanmar is an absolute tragedy. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) that we have to do more when it comes to sanctions.
I say to the Minister that I am very aware of the trade-offs and challenges in foreign policy, and that the environment we are in at the moment is far from benign when it comes to human rights. Tempting though it may be to say—although I know the Minister would not—that because the UK has its own problems, we should not get too involved in this, we matter when it comes to Myanmar. That is for a very simple, straightforward reason, which is that, on the Security Council, we hold the pen when it comes to Myanmar, so it is our responsibility to make sure that the UN is aware of what is happening there. Given what is happening, it is a special responsibility for us to galvanise the United Nations to do everything in its power to end the bloodshed and brutal oppression of the Burmese people.
I recognise that sanctions are in place, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about human rights, but we can do more. One of the biggest things we can do is repeat what I did in 2018 and organise a high-level meeting on Myanmar, chaired by the Foreign Secretary, at the United Nations General Assembly in September to make sure that we draw the attention of everyone who attends that vital meeting in New York to what is happening and to the terrible suffering of the Burmese people. If it is the only thing we do—I do not believe it is the only thing we can do—at least the UK will have made sure that the world knows what is happening in Myanmar.
Myanmar might not care too much about the UK as a country, but it cares about China, the country that is protecting it; it cares about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is sitting on the fence apart from the brave exception of the Philippines; and it cares about the UN, so this is a major moment where we must make sure that we do our duty. There are other things. We all know that the aid budget is being cut, but if the UK finds something to support humanitarian efforts—obviously, without channelling it through a corrupt and merciless Government—other countries will follow. And for the sake of posterity and of future victims, it is essential that we give full support to any efforts to assemble evidence of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, including referring the Arakan army to the International Court of Justice.
Will the Minister commit to the Foreign Secretary chairing a high-level meeting at UNGA in September? Will the Government respond to the final report of the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews? Will the Government consider invoking article 14 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court to request an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Myanmar? Will the UK sanction military-controlled banks in the way that other countries have?
Sadly, the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, is currently showing little interest in human rights across the world. Partly as a result, some autocrats are beginning to think that they can literally get away with murder, but the US is not the only democracy on the planet. There are us, European democracies, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries that share our democratic values. Britain does not have to stand on the sidelines, Britain must not stand on the sidelines, and I hope that when we hear from the Minister, he will tell us that Britain will not stand on the sidelines.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to Burma Campaign UK for its support, as well as to other non-governmental organisations that have supported the all-party parliamentary group on Burma. Burma Campaign UK provides secretariat support to the APPG, which I co-chair with the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). I congratulate him on securing this very important debate. I also thank him for his leadership on this issue both when he was Foreign Secretary and my party and I were in opposition, and from the Back Benches, and for his support to those of us who are campaigning on the plight of the Rohingya Muslims. Almost 1 million were expelled to Cox’s Bazar in neighbouring Bangladesh, and for seven years they have remained in the camps there. It is a population similar to that of Wales, and they are in horrific circumstances, so I am grateful for the support that the right hon. Member has provided.
Today we are debating the ongoing deterioration of human rights in Myanmar/Burma. Initially it was ethnic groups—the largest being the Rohingya population, although there were other ethnic groups—but now it is the whole population who face persecution by the Burmese military.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, relative to the other crises in the world, in Sudan, Gaza and other places, the long-running and tragic dispute between the regime and the many people who live in Myanmar/Burma deserves much more attention—not just in this House, which is what we are providing as Back Benchers, but from the Government?
Rushanara Ali
I absolutely agree and I thank my hon. Friend for her work, in both opposition and government, on this very important issue.
It is five years since the military coup, and what we have seen is further deterioration of the situation. Despite the heroic resistance and international condemnation, the military have instituted a regime of repression and violence on a massive scale. Military abuses are widespread, and 3.6 million people have been internally displaced. That is on top of the 1 million who were forced out to neighbouring countries. According to Amnesty International, military atrocities, which include war crimes and crimes against humanity, have escalated as the junta has sought to entrench its rule through abusive military operations and stage-managed elections.
Armed conflict has also escalated further. The Burmese military are also stepping up airstrikes targeting health facilities and civilians, using deadly double-tap airstrikes for the first time. The regime has restricted freedom of speech, the media and the internet. As well as experiencing restrictions on human rights, the people are paying a huge economic price.
I visited Myanmar twice before the military coup, and the situation was already bad, but this is significantly worse. In Rakhine state, we saw massive human rights violations against the Rohingya Muslims, but also other minorities. At that time, 100,000 people were internally displaced. Their circumstances are even worse because of the conflict there. Many international investors have of course pulled out, and the economic circumstances have got worse.
In the UK, over the years before the military coup, a huge amount of work was done from the Back Benches to get our Government to play a strong leadership role. I am proud of the work that we did on a cross-party basis, which led to Britain playing a leading role in ensuring that people spoke up and sought a referral to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Our strong historical ties leave us with not just a special responsibility, as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash pointed out, but an expectation from the people of Myanmar that we will stand with them in their struggle for human rights and democracy.
Following the 2021 military coup, the UK co-ordinated with global allies on the imposition of targeted sanctions, which limited the access of the Myanmar military to revenue and arms. In the absence of progress on a UN-mandated global arms embargo, which we campaigned for, we successfully lobbied countries to unilaterally impose their own arms embargoes. We joined international justice initiatives such as the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ and publicly supported the referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court. I am grateful to Philippe Sands and others who have been involved with that work.
That did not happen by accident. It happened because Members of Parliament worked together to ensure that the UK Government supported the ICJ referral. However, we are going backwards. We are now at risk of losing that momentum and jeopardising our position of leadership on this critical issue.
Like the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash, I recognise that there are huge pressures on our country, with conflicts raging in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere, but we have a responsibility to take action. We have seen that, when we work with our allies, we can make a difference.
Sadly, no new sanctions targeting the Myanmar military have been imposed since 2024 and since my party came into government. That is deeply disappointing and I hope that the Minister will work with us to look at what more we can do on sanctions.
In the following year, the number of airstrikes by the Myanmar military almost doubled. The tactics of the military have also changed. It is moving away from airstrikes mainly targeting frontlines to a greater focus on civilian targets, including health facilities. Tactics have since changed again, with several jets engaging in airstrikes simultaneously, dropping a far greater number of bombs.
Given the escalating human rights violations, the British Government should be doing everything they can to identify and sanction sources of revenue and arms and to encourage our allies to do the same.
I call on the Minister to make sure that we work with our partners. We have not joined Canada in sanctioning the jet fuel sector, despite the humanitarian and economic impacts of airstrikes, let alone the lives lost. We have not joined the European Union and the United States of America in sanctioning Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise—the military-controlled body responsible for oil and gas extraction and a major source of revenue to the Myanmar military. We have not joined the United States of America in sanctioning international telecommunications company, Myanmar Mytel, which is not only a military joint-venture company that provides revenue to the military, but is also used to track and arrest human rights activists.
There are a number of other sanctions that other countries have been party to that we have not. I call on the Minister to look at those areas and to work with our partners on that.
I look forward to working with Ministers in the Foreign Office, as well as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, to make sure that we take action to stand with the Burmese people and to ensure that they get justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) for their work as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group. As a Foreign Minister myself now, though in a lesser position than he occupied, I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s choice to prioritise Myanmar during his time as Foreign Secretary was important and made a difference. Both colleagues have helped to ensure that the voices of those in Myanmar suffering grave abuses of their fundamental human rights are not forgotten.
I am also grateful to the other hon. Members who have spoken today to show continued strong concern for the people of Myanmar from both sides of this House. I will endeavour to respond to the points raised.
Decades of impunity and military rule have eroded civil and political rights and left minority groups pushed to the margins. Since the coup in February 2021, the human rights crisis has fed directly into the humanitarian emergency described by the right hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend. Sustained international engagement, including by the UK, is essential. We will not stand by.
The military continues to commit serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Airstrikes on civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, have become commonplace. Punitive village burnings continue and religious freedoms, which were referenced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), are under constant threat.
Sexual violence, including the use of rape as a weapon of war, continues to be used as a political tool, particularly against women and LGBTQ individuals. More than 22,000 people are arbitrarily detained, including political leaders, journalists and human rights defenders. The announcement of the conditional release of former President Win Myint and the purported transfer to house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi fall far short of the widespread and full releases that are urgently needed. The legal system in Myanmar continues to be used to silence dissent, as the ongoing unjust detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and many others makes clear. We are deeply concerned by reports of torture and by restricted access to medical care in detention.
Civic space in the country is immensely constrained, and digital surveillance and repression have turned Myanmar into one of the most restrictive online environments in the world. Registration laws continue to limit the ability of civil society organisations to operate across the country. The recent elections held by the regime were neither free nor fair: all meaningful opposition was excluded, and the elections were accompanied by intimidation, coercion and abuse, including severe sentences under the election protection law.
As the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash said, the impact of those violations extends far beyond Myanmar’s borders. More than 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Bangladesh, with many more displaced across the region. At the same time, organised criminal networks, including scam centres relying on trafficked labour, continue to thrive in an environment of lawlessness. This poses risks to regional and international security.
Against that grim backdrop, this country must continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar. We are a leading donor, and are continuing to take practical action. In the past financial year, we have provided more than £80 million in lifesaving assistance, including emergency healthcare, protection, education and food, delivered through trusted partners. Human rights considerations are rightly central to our programming, with a focus on women, children, people with disabilities and other groups at heightened risk. We work to ensure that more than 65% of our funding goes to local organisations, including faith-based organisations.
Catherine West
Given the decline in the aid budget, will those commitments remain, or may there have to be a reduction in aid to Myanmar?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did such a good job in her previous guise as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific. We are standing by these commitments. It will be for the current Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to make future determinations about her portfolio.
Over the past year, we have reached more than 1.4 million people with humanitarian assistance and provided 1.3 million with essential health services. We will continue to stand by those who have been most affected.
Jim Shannon
In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the work that Open Doors does in Myanmar and across the world. Has the Minister had an opportunity—I suspect that he has—to contact Open Doors, find out what it is trying to do there, and work in partnership with it, for everyone’s benefit?
Mr Falconer
Sorry—I could not quite hear the hon. Gentleman, but I think he was asking whether we have been engaging with faith-based groups in Myanmar. We have, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has been focused on those questions. We recognise that the best way of reaching those most in need in these difficult times is through some of the faith-based groups in Myanmar.
Alongside critical humanitarian assistance, longer-term action is needed to end impunity and break cycles of violence. We will continue to support international accountability mechanisms, including the United Nations independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar. That work is already contributing to proceedings at the International Court of Justice and to the important investigations of the ICC. As colleagues are aware, we established the Myanmar Witness project, which verifies evidence using open-source intelligence and trains local actors to do the same.
I hear from colleagues the desire for further sanctions, but I am sure they are familiar with why Foreign Office Ministers are circumspect on such questions. We have imposed 19 rounds of sanctions already, targeting individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses, but of course we keep these questions under regular review.
It is vital to lay the foundations for an inclusive future led by the people of Myanmar. That is why we support efforts to protect civic space, strengthen local civil society and enable dialogue. That includes work to improve women’s participation in peace and security, support bottom-up approaches to governance, and reinforce economic and social rights through education, health and livelihoods initiatives. Through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations working to tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence.
We continue to support the Rohingya, who, as many colleagues powerfully set out, have faced decades of persecution. In Bangladesh, the UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis, and the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £27 million in September 2025. That includes targeted protection and support for women and girls, delivered through local partners. My colleague, Baroness Chapman, visited Cox’s Bazar camps in November 2025 and saw at first hand the UK’s programmes of support. That reaffirms our commitment to life-saving assistance and the safe, voluntary return of refugees when conditions allow.
The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash spoke with authority and experience about how central multilateral action is on these questions. As he says, we are indeed the penholder, and we are working to keep the situation firmly on the Security Council’s agenda, including through resolution 2669 and regular meetings. At the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, we continue to lead and support resolutions that maintain international scrutiny and mandate independent mechanisms. We work closely with the UN special rapporteur and the Secretary-General’s special envoy. We engage actively with partners in New York and Geneva to amplify Myanmar voices on international platforms. I heard the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion for the Foreign Secretary in high-level week, and I will pass that on.
We also recognise the importance of regional engagement—particularly the leadership of ASEAN and the five-point consensus. Through our international engagement, we consistently push for progress on ending violence, securing humanitarian access and advancing inclusive dialogue—all are essential to improving the human rights situation.
The human rights situation in Myanmar remains grave, but withdrawal or silence is not an option, and we will certainly not sit on the sidelines. Sustained pressure, co-ordinated engagement and targeted support can reduce harm, advance accountability and help lay the foundations for a future that respects the rights of all. The resilience and courage shown by communities across Myanmar, even in the face of extraordinary hardship, demands nothing less. We are committed to upholding international human rights standards and working with partners across the House to support the aspirations of the people of Myanmar for an inclusive and peaceful future.
Question put and agreed to.
Water Supply in Kent
(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
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered water supply in Kent.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to colleagues for coming to the debate, but it is disappointing that we are having to have it at all, after the fourth incident—and the third major one—disrupting the supply of water to South East Water customers in six months. Between November and December, approximately 24,000 customers experienced low water pressure or little to no water supply. When supplies were restored, a boil water notice was issued. In January, about 30,000 customers again had to put up with little or no water supply. In April, around 6,000 customers experienced water supply problems, which South East Water said were
“caused by a burst water main.”
At the end of May, as we know, customers had to cope for 11 days with interruptions to their water supply. On that most recent occasion, around 22,000 customers across Kent, including roughly 4,000 in my constituency, were impacted.
Last week, during an urgent question secured by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I spoke about how, like many of my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East Water due to its repeated failures. Access to clean, reliable water is not a luxury; it is a fundamental expectation. When people turn on their taps, they should be able to rely on a consistent supply of water. That is the absolute minimum any water company should guarantee, but all too often South East Water is not meeting that minimum expectation.
The repeated disruptions are not only inconvenient but deeply distressing for residents, who should be able to rely on water. The impact of these repeated failures is evident from the Consumer Council for Water report last week, which showed that trust in South East Water had been “materially weakened”. More than half of those surveyed now store bottled water at home in case of future incidents.
The most recent incident occurred during a short period of hot weather, when the consequences of shortages can be especially acute. It affected households; farmers, whose livelihoods depend on a steady supply of water; and vulnerable individuals in care homes, where continuity of basic services is critical to wellbeing and safety. The wider economic impact must also be recognised. Hotels, restaurants and pubs across parts of the county were forced to close, losing vital income during what should have been a busy period coinciding with the school half-term holidays.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman talked about farmers, who need water to give to their cattle. If they cannot do that, it is almost an animal tragedy waiting to happen. When there are water supply problems, many people suffer, but particularly farmers, who may have to look after 150 to 200 cattle, sheep or whatever it may be. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers need to be looked after as a priority?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. There are many farmers in my constituency, and I have heard about the challenges they face when there are water shortages and they do not know when the water will come back—even the uncertainty is difficult for them.
For businesses, loss of trade is not simply a temporary inconvenience; it can have lasting repercussions. Taken together, South East Water’s failures highlight a pattern of underperformance that is no longer acceptable and that demands urgent attention and accountability. I welcome the confirmation from Ofwat that the recent incident will be part of its ongoing investigation into South East Water, but can my hon. Friend the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to strengthen compensation arrangements for customers and what is being done to ensure that those affected by serious outages receive proper support and redress?
I want to recognise those who did their best during very difficult circumstances, including staff from local authorities, other agencies and the health and social care sector, as well as South East Water’s employees on the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the Water Minister and her officials for the way they actively engaged during the latest incident. In the conversations the Government had with South East Water, did the company give any assurances that lessons would be learned? It is important to have a robust evaluation of the measures put in place to assess what was effective and, more importantly, what needs improving.
According to the company, it used tankers to supply more than 2 million litres of water to its network. More than a week after taps started running dry, I was still being contacted by constituents experiencing supply issues. The company needs to explain why it took so long to restore supply during this and other recent disruptions.
South East Water reported distributing more than 1 million litres of bottled water to customers. However, one constituent on the priority services register did not receive water at her property. After my office intervened on her behalf, we were informed that water would be delivered later that day, by which time the constituent had confirmed that her supply had already been restored. The issue of people on the priority services register being left waiting for water was raised in the House during previous outages, but it continues to arise. In any evaluation that takes place, consideration needs to be given to the location of water distribution stations. Those living in rural areas, elderly residents or those without access to a car cannot travel far to collect bottled water. Provision must reflect need.
Communication is another persistent failure. Constituents received little or no information, and updates were often inconsistent. I know that is something that the Water Minister has raised with the company, but it is simply not good enough for constituents to be left wondering what is happening to their water supply, or when it will be restored.
South East Water’s communication with Members of Parliament also needs to improve. During the recent meningitis outbreak, alongside daily updates from the UK Health Security Agency, MPs were offered regular virtual meetings to answer questions. Although South East Water sent out daily email updates, the information I received from constituents often contradicted what the company was saying. It took direct contact from my office to request a virtual briefing before one was arranged.
Of course, the most important lesson to be learned is how to prevent future water supply disruption in the first place. Each time an incident occurs, a different reason is given, whether that is a plant failure, severe weather, a burst water main or increased demand during hot weather. Those explanations do not change the underlying reality: for years the company has prioritised shareholders’ interests over those of its customers, and has failed to make the necessary investment in its infrastructure.
After years of under-investment, South East Water’s ageing and leaking infrastructure is struggling to cope. That cannot be allowed to continue. After all, if my constituents have poor service from their telephone provider, they can change their network, but because water companies have a monopoly, South East Water’s customers have no choice but to put up with this failing company.
This lack of resilience in our water infrastructure is particularly concerning, given the need for more housing in my constituency and across the county. During the Conservative Government’s last year in power, planning applications were at their lowest point for a decade. As we look to fix this problem, it is important that housebuilding takes place with natural resources such as water in mind. That includes ensuring that water companies and housing developers make the necessary investment in infrastructure.
What action can the Government take to give councils, such as Ashford and Folkestone and Hythe in my constituency, and other planning authorities confidence that all water companies make that investment, to ensure that current needs are met and that future growth, including the demand for affordable housing, can be supported? Building on the proposals set out in the water White Paper, will the Minister update the House on what action the Government are taking to deliver a water system that the people of Kent can depend on?
Climate change makes this challenge more urgent. Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence on the impact of extreme heat, and we heard that we are likely to see more frequent heatwaves and periods of extreme temperatures. Kent and the south-east of England will be particularly exposed, which will have implications for water supply. Hotter weather increases demand, while dry summers reduce availability. As the Environment Agency has pointed out, Kent is already marked by exceptionally low rainfall.
While I welcome the proposed Broad Oak reservoir, South East Water is not expected to submit a planning application until 2028 at the earliest. That will take time to deliver, and even if it is in place, further action will still be required to safeguard supply. In last week’s urgent question, the Minister mentioned that the Government are looking at desalination plants as part of the longer-term answer to water supply challenges. Those could provide a reliable source of clean drinking water that is independent of rainfall, particularly during prolonged dry periods. I would welcome further details on the role the Government see for desalination within a balanced, long-term strategy for Kent’s water supply.
I would like to ask the Minister one final question. This Government have taken strong action by nationalising the steel industry to protect it for future generations. They have also addressed the failure of rail privatisation by bringing rail companies back into public ownership. Given the steps they have already taken on water, which include passing the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and giving the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies, what consideration have the Government given to taking failing water companies into public ownership?
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I apologise for the untimely interruption earlier, Mr Twigg— if I had been in the Chair, I would have been shouting at me. I wanted to open my mobile phone because at half-past 4 this afternoon a lady from Herne Bay texted me to say:
“Sewage is being discharged into Herne Bay from a combined sewage overflow”.
That is a common occurrence, and most Members present who represent coastal seats will have had messages like that over and over again. We can go around this circuit as many times as we like; we went around it last Wednesday, and then again on Monday, so I suspect that the Minister will get fed up listening to a cracked record.
Yet again, I have to highlight the fact that we are building hundreds and hundreds of houses in our coastal towns and hinterland, for which there is no water supply and no adequate sewerage. I learned today from one of my excellent local councillors in Dover, Martin Porter, that Southern Water is resisting a planning application for a village, simply because it cannot provide a facility to deal with the sewage the little estate will generate, any more than South East Water can supply the water that will be needed. Yet, as we have discussed in the last few days, the water companies have a statutory duty to provide water to every house built and—Southern Water is the sewage authority for both the areas I have mentioned—to dispose of the sewage, but they simply cannot do it.
Yet again, I make this point: will the Minister please take on board the need to ensure that the water companies are statutory consultees for all planning applications, so that we get a clear steer as to whether water supplies and sewage facilities are available, before yet more houses are built?
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. and caring Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this important debate, which is very pressing for everyone in Kent. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has just said, this issue is causing a lot of anxiety and aggravation for residents across the county.
In my constituency, there are two main elements to that: the supply and the outfall—the sewage. In terms of supply, my constituency is in one of the driest parts of the country—drier even than other parts of Kent, which is already the driest part of the country—because we are on the north side of the north downs and in the rain shadow. That is great for growing apples and pears, and for a lot of the nature and wildlife that we have, but it keeps our marshes a little drier than they would be otherwise.
However, we have real challenges with the supply of water, even with the large investment coming into the area, particularly to the Isle of Sheppey, which is exceptionally vulnerable. It is connected to the mainland of Great Britain by only a single water main that goes under the bridge. I had the pleasure of going underneath the Swale to see it, and it is surprisingly narrow. The entire island—nearly 40,000 people—is supplied by that very narrow pipe. Other infrastructure on the island is old, weak and creaking, and the cast iron water mains need replacing. I am grateful that the extra investment will mean that the 11 km east-west water main across the island will be replaced.
The fundamental problem, though, is that we have not been building reservoirs across most of the country, to ensure that we can store water in the wetter months of the year. Sittingbourne is an industrial town with huge water users: we have the largest paper mill in the entirety of the United Kingdom—the second biggest in Europe—which uses massive amounts of water, as do other key industries in my constituency’s towns. They are competing with residents—my constituents—for drinking water. Ironically, the water level in Sittingbourne is very high. Since we lost the other water mill, the River Bourne, which runs underneath the town, and the river at Periwinkle are both running high. We have water in the area that is coming off the north downs, but we cannot necessarily access it for industrial use. There is a bit of abstraction, but not enough. We cannot access water for industries that could really benefit the area, such as hydrogen plants and other things that might come online.
There are options for desalination. We are coastal and have lots of marsh areas, so I would appreciate hearing what the options for Kent are from the Minister. Other parts of the world that are even drier manage better than we do, so there is a fundamental question about how resilient we are in Kent. I would also like to hear from the Minister whether we have a clear plan for securing that sort of resilience across the supply by the end of the decade. What does that look like? My local council, Swale borough council, is extremely concerned by this. It has written to Southern Water and South East Water about the supply problems we have been facing and it wants to understand what the plans are for the future.
As my hon. and caring Friend the Member for Ashford said, we want to understand why the communication has been so poor. It is poor partly because we have a hodgepodge of different organisations—multiple water companies, a drainage board and, to some extent, the Environment Agency as well, which is involved in land drainage. Who people need to go to is often confusing, and when crises are happening, it is hard to get through to the right people; it is not joined up well enough with local government. Recently, as the crisis was happening in places such as Whitstable and Herne Bay, we got a lot of emergency supply come into the area, particularly the Isle of Sheppey. Bottled water stations were set up—they thankfully did not need to be used—and water tankers were moved on, but even while that was happening, it was still hard for local councillors and me to find out exactly what was happening and where. I got a lot of agitated calls from residents and councillors saying, “Do you know what’s happening? How likely are we to lose water supply?” That needs to be tightened up.
In terms of the drainage off the land, the sewage that is going into our waterways is a real concern, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said. I am grateful that Sheerness beach recently got its blue flag status renewed—please come to Sheerness for your summer holidays. Lots of local residents have been looking at the water. In Milton Creek in Sittingbourne, Raybel Charters, a group that restored the barge there and are in the water a lot, found that it is dirtier than the River Seine. Open water swimmers have been doing inspections at Queenborough and found bacteria there. National treasure and local legend Danny Dyer, who has been filming on the Isle of Sheppey, has also been investigating, and has found shocking amounts of E. coli and coliforms in the water—he does not want to damage the tourist reputation, given his caravan park.
This is a real risk, and I want to understand what we can do about it. In particular, what are we going to do about securing future supply, especially through reservoirs and desalination plants? What is the plan, Minister?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing the debate.
For people in the Weald of Kent, problems with the water supply have become depressingly common. The most recent outages, last month, left thousands of people without water or experiencing severely low pressure during a heatwave. South East Water, which covers the Weald of Kent, said that it had planned for the heatwave, but thousands of people across the Weald were still once again left without running water, unable to wash, cook, or run their businesses or farms. That followed a larger outage earlier this year, which left tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex without running water for days. That time, South East Water blamed a freeze and thaw event and the impact of Storm Goretti.
Come rain or shine, there are clearly serious problems at South East Water. On both occasions, but especially in January, communication was poor or non-existent. South East Water was unable to answer even basic questions, such as, “If I send my constituents to this bottled water station, will there be any bottled water for them when they get there?” The company took days to respond to emails to its supposedly instantaneous email address. It simply had no idea what was going on. For far too many people, this intermittent service and poor communication are part and parcel of life in the Weald of Kent.
Earlier this year, I ran a water survey to ask people about their historical experiences with South East Water. Nearly 3,000 households responded, and it was immediately clear that the catastrophic handling of January’s outage was not a lapse in form. The company has been providing a terrible service for years, and people are absolutely right to be fed up with it. One disabled resident reported that, despite being on South East Water’s priority list for receiving bottled water during times of crisis, they received no water at all for the duration of the outage. Farmers, who simply cannot afford to have water shut off for days on end, reported that farms and livestock did not even seem to be a consideration. One local farmer reported that, despite many hours on the phone, South East Water were
“totally unhelpful and rude, suggesting [that] I go and pick up a pack of water”.
To put that into context, this farmer pays for 250 litres of water a day. The company told him to go and pick up a pack of water.
The sheer volume of the individual stories was horrific—one woman who had just given birth to children had to take her toddler in the back of the car to the bottled water stations, because she was on the vulnerable list, but deliveries had not been made. Of those who responded to the survey, four in every five said they had been left without running water over the past decade, and four in 10 said that they had been without running water four or more times over that same period. That is absurd in 21st-century Britain.
Those self-reported experiences have been mirrored in recent months by a number of official inquiries into South East Water’s performance, both historically and in relation to the January outages. Ofwat has recently proposed a £22 million fine following supply failures between 2020 and 2023, noting that South East Water “has not taken ownership” of the underlying issues that caused the outages. Given the recent outages, it is clear that it still has not learned a thing.
The report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was perhaps the most damning. It described the company as “devoid of proper leadership” and as “an unaccountable clique.” I thank the members of the Committee for their work in scrutinising South East Water’s leadership, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).
In the light of those reports, both the chairman of South East Water, Chris Train, and the CEO, David Hinton, have resigned. That was a long time coming. Given their handling of the outages in January and the way they responded to the subsequent investigations, it was clear that change at South East Water was impossible under their leadership. They had shown no understanding of why they had failed, and no appreciation whatsoever of the harm they had caused to the people who rely on their service.
Although the resignations are very much welcome, the problems at South East Water did not start with Mr Hinton’s appointment as chief executive and will not automatically end with his resignation. As the results of the survey demonstrate, the issues at South East Water are endemic. I hope the company will use the change of leadership as an opportunity for true transformation and to review how it operates, plans and communicates with the public.
I want to use this opportunity to urge the regulator and the Minister, who I know is very focused on this issue, to do everything they can to encourage the company to go through a proper period of transformation. In this place and elsewhere, we will continue to hold it to account. However, it is important that South East Water is not just punished retrospectively, or after the fact, for its failures. Instead, we must ensure that it is taking the right steps to stop this problem becoming a permanent feature of life in the Weald of Kent.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and I am also grateful for all the other debates that we have had across Parliament on this issue. In addition, I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed, scrupulous analysis and for undertaking to meet key stakeholders in the community—I have used some of that feedback for this speech.
In my view, South East Water is manifestly a corporate failure, which has been allowed to metastasise over the last 10 years. That has left customers paying the price for something that is ultimately a basic need in every single household. That failure stems from four key factors. South East Water failed to effectively monitor its management of the only product that it distributes; it failed to maintain its assets, from pipes to supply chains and ultimately the storage areas and the places where water was secured from; it failed to invest in its infrastructure; and it failed to respond to and communicate with not only MPs and council leaders but with other key stakeholders in the region, including the Kent Resilience Forum, leaving people exposed when incidents occurred.
Like others, I celebrate the resignations of key senior managers, but my focus now is on how we drive the company forward so that there is not a repeat of these incidents, which have gone on since before this Government—other incidents occurred from 2020 to 2023. More broadly, it must be said that incidents occur in other parts of the country, albeit on a smaller scale, so this represents a structural failure within the sector. I welcome the Cunliffe review and some of the reforms that we are making to water regulation, so that we can take some of these issues by the horns and deal with them. Fundamentally, though, my constituents want redress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned, we know from the statistics that 24,000 customers were impacted in December and that 22,000 were impacted in May. Although we did not have water shortages in my constituency, several key villages—Wouldham, Burham, Eccles and Larkfield—and the town of Snodland were placed in the “at risk” category. Although their water supply was not restricted, in effect they given a warning that it would be and had to prepare for that, and they are next to a key water supply station.
I was inundated by messages from concerned people over the Christmas period—“When is this going to happen?”, “What is going to occur?”—so I would say that the company first needs to fundamentally improve its communications, which I think have been lamentable. Nor do I think that it was particularly effective at communicating with Ministers on how it manages crisis situations, and the way it communicated with local council leaders, local community leaders, MPs and others was absolutely atrocious.
The senior management of the company has now changed, but what processes have been put in place to ensure an absolutely clear line of sight and experience in communication? Indeed, one of the outcomes from 2023 was that South East Water was supposed to improve communication, but it has clearly learned absolutely no lessons.
My second point is about the company’s failure to maintain its assets. I know that colleagues here today will talk about Pembury works, Bewl Water and parts of the supply chain, but water companies are supposed to present to Parliament five-year capital management plans and get support from their shareholders for where that will go in future, so there is a real question about whether shareholders were holding the company responsible. Also, why did the company’s own internal processes not even record some of these events?
It was quite telling that when David Hinton appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he said, “Well, we couldn’t have foreseen some of these events.” Possibly not, but that was because the company was not monitoring the very things that it needed to monitor before those outcomes occurred. What is the company doing now, and what are the Government doing to press it to act on this?
Investment is also critical. With all the infrastructure expansion we are expecting in Kent—not only new homes but new businesses and industrial and commercial enterprises—there is clearly now demand for future water supply. Given the company’s questionable financial status in terms of worth, where are we heading on its financial sustainability? What are the Government doing to prepare for any financial outcome around financial market confidence in the organisation? Although this is not a Thames Water situation, in my view we are very close to something similar occurring.
Lastly, in my view—this was also the conclusion of the Committee—the company should be held to account according to the standards of public accountability. When water companies fail, how specifically do we intervene—as any businesses or consultancy coming into a business would—to direct some of that change? I worry that, without leadership, the company will drift and these incidents will repeat every six months or every year for the next three years. We need to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and my residents need to know that when they pay their water bill at the end of the month, they will get the service that they expect.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call the first Front-Bench spokesperson no later than 5.09 pm. I call Tom Tugendhat, who I am sure will be cognisant of that.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I assure you that will not be a problem, Mr Twigg, despite my known verbosity. Sadly, the Minister has heard many of my points before. However, I am grateful that she is here, as whatever any of us have said about South East Water, the one thing that unites us is knowing that she is doing her absolute damnedest. She, through her Department, has been absolutely brilliant. Wherever we sit, it is good to see her here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on securing this debate. Funnily enough, I applied for a debate on this topic—he won on this one—but I will still not speak for the whole eight minutes.
This is not the first time we have been here, nor the first time we have had a water outage in Kent, as we have heard from other hon. Members. By my records, this is the fifth major South East Water outage to hit the community I am lucky enough to represent since the start of last year. We heard that there were water shortages this winter because it was too cold, and we heard that there were water shortages this summer because it has been too hot. Frankly, South East Water is the Goldilocks company: it will deliver water only when everything is just right.
The common denominator is clearly not the temperature, so what is it? Obviously, the answer is South East Water. Edenbridge and the surrounding areas, which are part of the community I represent, are served by SES Water, and the situation is completely different. Despite remarkably similar—in fact, almost identical—weather to that which can be found a few metres over the border in South East Water’s area, we have not had a single outage—that is remarkable, isn’t it?
Although much of the focus over the winter was understandably on Tunbridge Wells, and this time it has been on Whitstable and the areas around Ashford, in reality an outage could happen anywhere. Each time we have had a water outage, a different community has been affected. Across the five outages I have experienced, there were issues in north Tonbridge, south Tonbridge, Penshurst, Plaxtol, Mereworth, Offham, Platt, West Peckham, Wrotham, Addington and Trosley. Each time, it has seemed to catch South East Water by surprise, and its response has always taken too long.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) secured an urgent question in the Chamber on this topic, during which I said that South East Water is the worst company I have come across in my 11 years as an MP. I am delighted to say that many people have been in touch on social media to confirm their own impressions of the company, so I can represent that as the view of the whole constituency.
Here is why: South East Water simply does not know where the problems are coming from. It is constantly astonished that it is expected to deliver water—it is almost as though it thought its job was merely to rake in the bills. Now, why has this happened, and how will it recover? It causes so many issues that it is impossible to trust any information that it gives during an outage. Usually, we hear directly from residents first.
Let me explain what happened just a few weeks ago in my own community. At 9 o’clock on 28 May, residents at the top of Mereworth lost water. There was no communication at all from South East Water, and nothing on its website. Very late at night, water bottles arrived and were apparently made available only to those on the priority services register. Actually, many of those on the register did not get them. It was only because of an extremely assiduous local councillor, Sarah Hudson, that any of them were picked up and delivered to local residents. It is fantastic that we have such a great local councillor, but we cannot rely on local councillors every night and every time South East Water fails.
It took until Saturday evening for water supplies to be delivered to Mereworth, 36 hours after the water was lost. Again, it was local councillors, this time Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, who facilitated and unloaded the delivery in a pub car park for residents to use. Even worse, come Sunday it was established that Mereworth did not have enough water. It just could not be pumped to the properties. Why? Because the booster had failed twice at Bough Beech reservoir. Why did it fail? The view of residents is that it is in the wrong place.
I have offered South East Water the chance to take me round to see why that did not work, and to explain it with its engineers. But guess what? It said no. Worse than that, exactly the same issue happened in February, and many of the same properties were without water for the same reason. The alternative provision of water was just as slow. Nothing had changed. How do we stop that happening again? There are things that this company needs to do urgently. Some of it has started, including getting rid of the chairman and the chief executive, but it also needs to improve the list of potential bottled water stations.
There is still much more to do. South East Water’s business continuity plan is a joke. Its staff are not empowered to develop local knowledge of each town and village and how to establish the best responses. Given the sheer number of communities affected, one would hope it had started yesterday, but it has never started at all.
South East Water also needs to be bolder and braver. It needs to be forthright about the fragility of our water system. It needs to be clear about its inability to serve our community. I am pleased that has started, and that it has objected to the Government’s housing target for Tonbridge and Malling’s local plan. That is the right thing to do because, despite many of us wanting more homes in our area, if the water supply to current households cannot be guaranteed, how on earth can we supply 20,000 more households across Tonbridge and Malling by 2042?
I had to debate this in this very room in March, and we debated it in the main Chamber only a few years ago. In the debate with Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it was very clear that the planning needed to happen. Either the supply of water has to increase dramatically or the housing targets have to be reduced. I know the council is directly engaged with the water delivery taskforce, but I understand that the promised position statement has not materialised—certainly not to the standard that Tonbridge and Malling borough council needs. That will leave the council with no choice. It will have to stand against the Government’s housing targets.
The Government seem to have no answers for the simple issue that their housing targets for Kent are way in excess of what South East Water can provide. I once again thank the Minister for her hard work. It is very gratefully received, but there are many challenges ahead.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
The Opposition spokespeople will probably have around six and a half minutes. That will give time for the Minister to wind up and, of course, for the mover of the motion to reply.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and an honour to follow so many fellow Kent MPs and constituency neighbours.
In December last year, 24,000 properties in Tunbridge Wells were completely without water for a week. The following week, they had a boil notice, so they were without drinking water for two weeks. The stories that my constituents shared are harrowing. Someone who was incontinent with colon cancer was left to clean with wet wipes. Another lady who had a miscarriage was unable to clean herself, compounding the trauma. People fainted outside kidney dialysis centres and had to have CPR. Schools shut, GP surgeries received no bottled water deliveries and, as we have all spoken about, our constituents who are supposedly on the priority register did not receive any supplies. My office became a kind of crisis cell where people were able to feed requests to us to pass on to South East Water.
It would be funny if it was not so serious, but when Dave Hinton was brought in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January, as he was speaking the water went off again in Tunbridge Wells for a further week. Local businesses in Tunbridge Wells lost millions over both of those outages, and the sum offered by South East Water was paltry. Working with the business improvement district and local businesses, we presented evidence to South East Water and secured a commitment that it would at least look at the size of the compensation it offered. I hope soon to bring the good news to colleagues that South East Water will increase the compensation, but local businesses lost the critical period before Christmas, which is when hospitality businesses make all of their money for the rest of the year.
As has been mentioned, the chair and the CEO have gone. I am glad that we all united around the calls, originating during the December outage, for the CEO to step down—no change could happen at South East Water without the CEO, in particular, going. I have met the new chair, and I am impressed. There are some small seeds and shoots that we can look at, because although the chair and the CEO leaving is necessary, it is not sufficient.
In Tunbridge Wells, we need to look at investment going into Pembury water treatment works specifically, as well as at the interconnections between all of our constituencies. South East Water was cobbled together from 20 other companies over 50 years, and the interconnections have not been built between those separate water networks.
There is another point about shareholders and accountability. South East Water is owned by three major shareholders: the NatWest Group pension fund, Desjardins and Utilities Trust of Australia. One way they make a return on their capital is by charging extortionate interest rates on loans to the company—in the order of 10%. Putting reputational risk aside, it is effectively a risk-free investment because, in reality, the Government back the water network.
South East Water’s debt interest runs at £3,000 an hour, so while my constituents did not have water in December, South East Water’s shareholders made £1.8 million in interest from the company. The result is that we have under-invested infrastructure that fails and causes outages, leading to the terrible problems we have been speaking about.
I echo what everyone has said about the Minister being extremely forward-leaning and helpful in these crises. She suffered a personal tragedy during one of the outages in Tunbridge Wells, and before she went off on compassionate leave, she reached out to my office to make sure I had everything I needed from the Department. That speaks to her approach to the job, as well as her professionalism.
The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 fixes some of the regulation issues. The Liberal Democrats had been calling for a long time for the abolition of Ofwat and the creation of a regulator that brings together all these myriad regulators and strengthens their power, so we are very glad. However, I gently say to the Minister that there is an issue around the debt that the water companies hold.
The sector is worth about £100 billion in asset value, and it borrowed £70 billion against that. A sector that has a 70% debt-to-equity ratio is not a sector that is able to deliver proper investment, and I have spoken about the high interest rates. We are in this mess because of financial engineering by the likes of Macquarie and other investors. Without looking at that financialisation and solving those problems, particularly around debt, it will be difficult to drive the investment required in companies such as South East Water.
I want to touch very briefly on Ofwat, which recently fined South East Water £22 million. I think I have about a minute left.
Mike Martin
I would argue that, rather than fining the company after the event, we should be forcing it to invest equivalent or larger amounts in infrastructure. I presented a resilience plan drawn up with water experts for Pembury water treatment works. That fine should be commuted. It just goes to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, but that money should be invested in the water network.
I will conclude by looking ahead. The Water (Special Measures) Act is necessary but not sufficient—a bit like getting rid of the chair and CEO. Without tackling the debt burden and the financial structures of many of these firms, in which bonuses are still paid and part of the corporate structure is in the Cayman Islands or whatever, we will not get to the root of the problems in the water sector.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing and opening this debate.
We have heard powerful contributions from across Kent, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I congratulate him on his urgent question last week about important planning issues. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about water use and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about the impacts on people and, indeed, on animals—I will touch on that. I congratulate her on her water survey and communication with her constituents on these issues. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) highlighted the failures of the water company. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) set out the detail of the outages and highlighted the importance of local knowledge in the response to such situations.
Over recent weeks, the House has heard a series of testimonies during debates in which many colleagues will have taken part, including on various urgent questions. Taken together, they show that the South East Water issues affecting our constituents are unacceptable, and they make clear—I know that the Minister has been all over this, as we have heard in powerful testimony—our persistent frustration about that company’s failures.
As we have heard, Kent is served primarily by two main water suppliers: South East Water and Southern Water. The county relies heavily on chalk aquifers and bulk-treated water supplies from Southern Water, which, in turn, provides bulk transfers to South East Water. That has caused issues, as the dependency creates its own vulnerabilities. The Government must consider that moving forward.
Kent experiences unusually dry conditions. The Environment Agency’s April 2026 report noted that Kent and south London faced exceptionally low rainfall, with the area receiving just 4 mm of rain in April—equivalent to just 10% of the long-term average—and decreases in soil moisture, average river flows and groundwater levels. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving forward and talking about reservoirs—a reservoir will be built in Broad Oak near Canterbury, although we are concerned about the time it will take to build it—but I hope that they are considering short-term resilience, too.
South East Water supplies drinking water to 2.3 million people across the south-east, but the recent outages have caused deep and widespread frustration and distress. Many customers have experienced low-pressure water or no water at all during the outages, followed by a boil water notice when supplies were finally restored. The consequences—Members will be all over this—have been severe: thousands of homes left without water, schools and libraries forced to close, hospitality businesses shutting their doors, farmers and horse owners worried about their livestock and even hospital appointments moved online. Water companies have repeatedly claimed that they have no duty to provide water for animals, but a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres a day, while a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres—and more in hot weather. The outages have created human and animal welfare issues.
During South East Water’s most recent supply failures, residents were queuing in hot conditions at bottled water stations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what measures are in place to protect elderly and vulnerable people during such events. What assessment has been made of the mental health impacts of recurring outages, which are becoming distressingly frequent? The Minister will be aware that the Drinking Water Inspectorate launched an investigation and found that the failure was the result of
“long-standing weaknesses and failures in process control, monitoring, maintenance and operational management.”
The chair and chief executive of South East Water have resigned, but what customers really want is change and improvements now and in future. How will the Minister ensure that the new leadership of South East Water works at pace to deliver the upgrades required to prevent outages? Does the Minister agree that this must be a turning point for the company?
A report from the Consumer Council for Water found that fewer than one in 10 South East Water customers were satisfied with how the company handled the supply issues in late 2025, and I am sure that the figure is probably worse now. Over half of customers in vulnerable circumstances who registered for priority services did not receive the support that they expected. Given the focus of the Cunliffe review on long-term water security, will the Government confirm which recommendations they will take forward to address those structural issues and restore public confidence?
As we have heard, unlike for broadband or other utilities, customers cannot switch water supplier. They have no choice over who provides their water, so there must not be a postcode lottery when it comes to reliable supply. Companies that fail their customers must be held to account, so can the Minister confirm when the clean water Bill will be coming down the track with new checks and inspections, and whether the new regulator will have the powers it needs to hold water companies to account?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich talked about the importance of planning issues. Are the Government considering whether water companies should become statutory consultees, given that we have thousands of homes planned in counties around the country, including in Kent and my own county of Essex? We need to know that both water supply and wastage are adequate moving forward.
Reliable and safe water supply and disposal is an issue that unites Members from across the House. We all want our constituents to have not only a reliable water supply but a safe, predictable and dependable one that meets the basic standards necessary for them to live their lives and for businesses to go about their business. Public institutions such as hospitals and schools depend on it, private businesses depend on it and people very much depend on it. Will the Government hold the water companies to account so that we get that right?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
If the Minister could leave a minute or so for the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) to wind up, that would be great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and for his excellent work on the Environmental Audit Committee. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate.
In the time I have, I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible, but I think we are generally united in our feelings about this company and its performance. I express my sympathy again for all those affected by the recent disruption to supply in Kent, and I echo Members’ concerns about the human impact that it had. We heard the story of the lady who had a miscarriage, and about the people who had to use wet wipes, so we can see the impact that the disruption had on people’s lives. This was more than just a supply outage; it has a fundamental impact on everyone’s lives.
Being without water is always very distressing, but that is particularly true during a period of hot weather and during the school half-term. As has been mentioned, it was the third major outage affecting customers. That is simply unacceptable. We all agree that it is important and right that the chair and CEO have resigned. I met the interim chair of South East Water twice during the incident, and I was clear that we need a focused plan for the summer.
We expect the weather to become hot again, so we expect people to increase the amount of water they use. South East Water needs to work more closely with local partners so that it can rebuild trust. Members highlighted that trust has been broken and needs to be restored. It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) had a positive meeting with the interim chair. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but we hope that it is starting to show.
Weather can increase the demand for water—of course, it increased demand all around the country—but increased demand led to a supply outage at only one water company. One longer-term cause is the company’s failure to invest sufficiently in maintaining and strengthening its infrastructure. A reliable source of clean water is one of the fundamental foundations of a healthy, functioning society. We are rightly proud that we have some of the safest drinking water in the world, but that is no good if it fails to come out of the tap. The situation demands bold action to deliver fundamental, long-term reform, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.
I will try to answer as many questions as I can. Six desalination plants are planned, largely in the south and south-east. One plant will specifically supply water for Sizewell C. Another is currently in operation in the Thames area, but there are also plants planned for Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the south and east coasts.
Members asked what should happen if a company continues to fail. The ultimate action will be to consider special administration. Of course, there is a high bar for special administration on performance grounds. It requires a serious breach of principal duties or of an enforcement order such that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to carefully monitor the performance of all water companies, and we stand ready to intervene, if required, to ensure the continued provision of a vital customer service.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was right to highlight concerns about poor communication. I echo her support for a true transformation not just in delivery, but in culture, communication and everything that goes with it. She mentioned farms, as did a couple of other hon. Members. I understand from South East Water and other organisations in the Kent resilience forum, which looked at the risk to water supply for a range of locations, including farms, that in general water companies will look to supply alternative water for animals where they are able to, but that it is important for livestock keepers to have appropriate contingency plans. Obviously, if they are not receiving water, I am keen to hear about it.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). I hear his frustration and anger about this. He is right: we need to change things. The performance improvement regime that we are looking to introduce as part of our reforms is about doing that. Rather than being about intervening every time companies fail, it is about identifying poorly performing companies and getting in there early to support them in improving—it does what it says on the tin. Rather than waiting for failure in order to act, we say, “Okay, these are the poorly performing companies. We need to intervene early and look at why they are poorly performing. Is the reason leadership? Is it culture, asset standards or resilience? Is it that they have not got enough? What is the problem and what do we need to get in there?” That is one of our key reforms. If we are to build resilience, we have to get in there early and do something about it.
I come now to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). It was awful—disgusting—to hear about the sewage. He was right to talk about capacity in respect of water and waste water, as was the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). What are we going to do about water resources? We have a twin-track approach to improving water resilience that considers urgent action on water efficiency and reducing leaks—that is crucial—alongside investment in new supply infrastructure. We are trying to do both at the same time. The infrastructure includes reservoirs and water transfers, but they will not be ready and available tomorrow, so must consider water efficiency.
MHCLG recently ran a consultation, which closed in January, on reforming the statutory consultee system. MHCLG is considering the role of water and sewerage companies in planning applications as it reviews responses to the consultation.
In the meantime, colleagues in MHCLG are implementing a new plan-making system to ensure better join up between water and development planning processes. That includes prescribing water and sewerage companies in “requirement to assist” regulations so that they are obliged to assist with plan making where reasonably requested, and listing water and sewerage companies as consultation bodies, so that they are made aware of key plan-making consultations where they have an interest.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right to highlight specific failings, and I feel his exasperation. He pointed out the problems around trust. I wholeheartedly agree: it is very difficult to have trust in a company that continues to fail.
On the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), it is good that that £104 billion investment is there—that is really important. He made a good point about industry use of water. It is a bit bonkers that we use drinking water for cooling systems. I want to do something about that and about the lack of join up. We must look to the local resilience forum as well.
Have I missed anybody? I hope not. No one is shaking their head to tell me I have. In that case, I thank everyone for raising their concerns. I had better be quiet now!
Sojan Joseph
I thank the Minister for all her work, and all my colleagues, who are united on this issue. I thank the local authorities that reached out to raise their concerns, including the leader of Ashford borough council, who is here to raise his concerns with us all.
Many issues and impacts can be measured, but, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, when things like this happen, the mental health impact is not measurable, and it is important that all parliamentarians think about that. This is not a small matter for those with small children or animals.
Once again, I thank everyone for their contributions. We need to continue putting pressure on the water company to improve its service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered water supply in Kent.
Written Statements
Bovine TB Control in England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Today, I can inform the House of the publication of the co-designed bovine tuberculosis control strategy for England, developed and recommended by the steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership. It is now available on the Government-industry TB Hub website.
We said in our manifesto that we would work with farmers and scientists on measures to eradicate bovine TB, and that is exactly what this process has done. The recommended strategy reflects the contribution of farmers, vets, scientists, industry representatives, and members of the public, brought together through several dedicated working groups and public dialogue workshops.
I want to place on record my thanks to all those who took part, giving their time, their expertise, and their experience to help shape this work.
Bovine TB remains one of the most difficult and persistent animal health challenges we face. We know the toll it takes, not only on cattle but on farmers, their families, vets, and rural communities. Too many have lived with that burden for too long.
We must also recognise that bovine TB is a deeply contested and often polarised issue, particularly around wildlife and the role of badgers in disease spread. Let me be clear: the badger cull is ending, and no new licences can be issued under that policy, as we instead keep the focus on cattle while also protecting wildlife.
When we announced the co-design of a new strategy in August 2024, this Government committed to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament, and we have made good on that commitment.
The 2025 culling season marked the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high risk and edge areas. Today, just one licence remains in Cumbria in the low risk area. However, no decision has been taken by Natural England to authorise culling under that licence in 2026, and I understand that the licence will be formally revoked by it, with a transition to badger vaccination now under way.
Against that backdrop, I welcome the steering group’s recommended strategy. It sets out a clear direction, and what we now need to deliver: reducing TB in cattle, improving early detection, giving farmers and vets more agency to manage disease risk, strengthening biosecurity, and keeping a firm focus on the long-term prize of achieving officially bovine TB free status for England by 2038.
This goal matters. It means lifting the shadow of this disease from farming families, restoring confidence for the future, growing the rural economy, and supporting profitable, resilient farm businesses.
The publication today is an important step forward. It responds directly to the challenge set by Professor Sir Charles Godfray and his panel to increase the pace and urgency of our efforts. Crucially, it also sets a clear ambition to deploy a cattle vaccine and a DIVA—detect infected among vaccinated animals—test by 2030. A licence application for the vaccine has already been submitted to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
The Government will now consider the steering group’s proposals carefully, and we will do so at pace. We will continue to work closely with farmers, vets, scientists and industry partners to move swiftly from recommendation to delivery, so that the momentum we have begun is not lost.
Our intention is therefore to translate this strategy into action without delay, through a series of rolling three to five year delivery plans that ensure progress is sustained, transparent, and felt on the ground.
I will update the House further in due course.
[HCWS103]
Orphines: Temporary Class Drug Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering this Government’s missions by making our streets safer, improving our nation’s health, breaking down barriers to opportunities for all and supporting economic growth.
In the last year orphines, a class of lethal synthetic opioids, have emerged in the UK. The National Crime Agency and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities have reported that in England alone there have been more than 15 confirmed deaths in which orphines were involved since the spring of 2025. The OHID’s National Drug Treatment Monitoring System data shows that 12 of these were in the period September to December 2025, including five in December.
I am today laying a temporary class drug order before Parliament, under section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This will control seven named orphines. Three of the seven have been identified as being involved in deaths in the UK; the other four were notified by the EU Drugs Agency as being present in EU drugs markets. This is in line with a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for whose recent report on orphines I am grateful.
The TCDO will make it easier for law enforcement to take action against those supplying orphines. It will make it a specific offence to supply, offer to supply, produce, possess with intent to supply, import or export these seven substances. The maximum sentence will be 14 years’ imprisonment.
The TCDO comes into force tomorrow, and lasts for a year, unless the substances named within it are, before then, permanently controlled under the 1971 Act. I intend to lay before Parliament in due course a draft Order in Council which would, if agreed by Parliament, enact such a permanent control by making these substances class A drugs.
These substances are not believed to have legitimate uses, but should someone need to make legitimate use of them, for example for research purposes, they will be able to apply to the Home Office for a licence.
We will continue to support law enforcement agencies in taking action against these and other harmful drugs, to protect our communities.
[HCWS105]
Belfast Attack: Further Information
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
In my response to yesterday’s urgent question, I committed to provide the House with a further update on the facts surrounding the horrific attack in north Belfast on 8 June.
My thoughts remain with the victim and his family, and with the wider community, who have been left shaken by these brutal events.
The scenes of disorder that we witnessed in some parts of Northern Ireland last night were shameful. It has put innocent lives at risk, injured police officers and caused terror to people—forced to flee their homes by mobs of masked men. I know that the whole House will utterly condemn these attacks, the burning of cars and homes and the other related violence that we have seen. There is no justification at all for this type of thuggery.
I spoke with the chief constable yesterday and have seen him this morning in Belfast. I have extended my full support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland as it seeks to protect the public, and I have wished the officers injured in last night’s disturbances a speedy recovery.
The Home Office confirmed yesterday afternoon that the individual is a Sudanese national with leave to remain in the UK until 2028. He entered the UK in 2023 and was granted refugee status the same year. The suspect says that he travelled from mainland Europe to Dublin and then on to Belfast, where he claimed asylum.
The PSNI yesterday stated that it has no information to suggest that this was a terrorist-related incident.
The suspect was charged last night with attempted murder, possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place and threats to kill.
Although nationality, immigration and asylum are excepted matters under the devolution settlement, the Home Office maintains close co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Home Office operates the same range of immigration functions in Northern Ireland as it does across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Nearly 70,000 individuals were returned or removed from the UK between July 2024 and the end of March 2026. This represents a 41% increase on the number of returns recorded in the previous 21-month period.
Of the total returns in the year ending March 2026, nearly 5,900 were of foreign national offenders—an increase of 13% compared to 5,203 FNO returns in the previous year.
Foreign nationals who commit crimes should be under no illusion: the law will be strictly enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue deportation.
This attack was deeply shocking and public concern is understandable, but this moment requires calm leadership. We must stand united in rejecting any attempts to use this incident to incite violence, which, as we saw last night, only harms local communities. There is absolutely no excuse for further disorder and the route to justice will be achieved solely through the work of the PSNI and the legal system. I would encourage anyone with relevant information to contact the police.
[HCWS106]
Digital and Technologies Sector Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance of Balham.
I am pleased to update the House on the publication of the “Digital and Technologies Sector Plan: Year One Update”. In June 2025, we published the sector plan—the UK’s first long-term plan to back the sectors and technologies of the future—as part of the Government’s modern industrial strategy. We set out a clear, ambitious, 10-year vision: to make the UK one of the top three places in the world to create, invest in and scale up a fast-growing technology business by 2035. We are working to secure the UK’s first trillion-dollar technology company.
The implementation update we are publishing today sets out our progress in delivering on the commitments set out in our sector plan, and where we have expanded our ambition, across the following areas:
Unlocking economy-wide measures to boost digital and technologies growth. The Government are providing end-to-end support for our sector’s innovative, high growth companies across the UK to underpin the UK’s growth, security and sovereignty. We have announced record public investment in R&D to back frontier technologies at the earliest stage, including committing nearly £4 billion of funding until 2029-30 through UK Research and Innovation. We have launched TechFirst, which has already reached over 100,000 young people, to grow our domestic skills pipeline for our six frontier technologies. We have expanded the British Business Bank’s mandate, with a new activist focus on scale-ups to back British deep tech champions, such as its recent £100 million investment in the UK based spinout, Oxford Quantum Circuits. We have introduced tax reforms to encourage frontier technology companies to start, scale and stay in the UK. And we are delivering world-class infrastructure, including the telecoms infrastructure that is fundamental to our digital economy.
Supporting our frontier technologies. The Government are taking an active and strategic approach to grow the UK’s technological capabilities. Earlier this year, we expanded and extended the engineering biology mission awards with £20 million of funding and delivered our third engineering biology accelerator programme in collaboration with Science Creates. We have launched Sovereign AI, a new sovereign venture fund which will invest £500 million to scale AI companies in the UK. This week we published the AI hardware plan to back British companies developing the chips and semiconductor technologies behind AI and invest in the scientists, engineers and technicians needed to turn new ideas into products and good jobs in the UK. We have published the cyber growth action plan to boost the UK cyber-security industry and we are scaling the national security strategic investment fund to invest in strategic dual-use science and technology companies. Expanding on our sector plan commitments, we announced up to £2 billion to establish the UK as a world-leader in quantum, including skills and talent, research, and a world-first commitment to procure large scale quantum computers in the early 2030s.
Growing the Digital and Technologies sector across the UK. The Government are committed to maximising the benefits of innovative technologies for communities across the country. We are backing places across the UK to build on their strengths, with support ranging from the local innovation partnership and global talent funds to the five digital and technology technical excellence colleges.
One year into delivery, we can already see this work is paying off. The UK alone has captured 48% of all European venture capital funding so far in 2026. Last year, digital and technologies companies received £8.3 billion of equity investment and strategic companies are choosing to anchor and scale in the UK.
We have made strong progress in the first year of delivery of the sector plan, but our ambitions do not stop here. Our update publication also outlines our next steps and where we will go further as we move into year two of our decade-long commitment to the sector. I look forward to further updating the House on our future delivery.
[HCWS104]
Grand Committee
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.
I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Alongside the Act, animal welfare standards are supported by the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence, and these regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework so that the same high standards continue to apply.
I am very much aware that the use of animals in science attracts significant public interest and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision where animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. As noble Lords will know, in November 2025 we published the replacing animals in science strategy, backed by £75 million of investment, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. The strategy includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, create a preclinical translational models hub and expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.
At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system.
This is exactly what these regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when it is truly necessary. These regulations provide legal clarity following EU exit to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. I therefore commend this SI to the Committee.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.
I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.
Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.
When this SI was laid, I contacted the Royal Society of Biology for its advice. I should declare an interest, because I worked for the Royal Society of Biology before I was elected to this House. The society confirms that, as my noble friend has set out, this statutory instrument is essentially a tidying-up of the existing standards. It represents a change that will help the sector to propose improvements in practice and for the regulator to accept them and help to embed them as expected standards across the research community. The SI is related to minor amendments to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, such as mandatory standards of care and housing, et cetera. These amendments themselves largely relate, as my noble friend has said, to removing references to the EU, which are no longer valid, as well as a few minor clarifications.
The amendments relate to the first two-thirds of the code of practice. The final third of the code of practice, which relates to non-mandatory guidance and leading practice, has been removed, as the Home Office will be revising this more heavily at a later date —my noble friend may be able to confirm this—and will take into account advice given by the Animals in Science Committee on strengthening leading practice. This part will now exist as a stand-alone resource. The real point that I want to make is that the benefit of this is that it can be updated more quickly than if it remains part of the mandatory code of practice and should help more effectively to embed emerging improvements and practices across the sector. On this basis, I hope that this statutory instrument will commend itself to the Committee.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I, too, will speak briefly to the statutory instrument. These draft regulations must ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively and they make technical amendments relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. It is only correct to have strong scrutiny where the welfare of animals is concerned. I for one hope that the Government are fully committed to meeting those targets set for 2030 to emphasise the fact that this must and should include progress reporting, set with clear time scales of action leading towards supporting a transition away from animal use in science and absolutely to maintain our current standard, as well as to be in line with the post-EU governance. Any procedural changes must require primary legislation.
These technical changes around transparency and oversight are in line with maintaining UK standards and benchmarks, following the removal of the EU references. Assurances are required, though, on how they will operate in practice, whether the amendments fully preserve the existing protections and reporting requirements and how the key provisions will be updated over time. Above all, every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals and, again, to acknowledge that further steps are required to reduce the use of animals in research.
Lastly, I ask the Minister: what mechanism will replace EU-level comparators and oversight? Will the provision translate into improved public accountability and transparency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.
I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?
At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?
There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?
Lastly, I understand that the target is that there will be a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates in such experiments by 2030. Is that still the case? Are we on course to achieve that?
I put on record that I think that we have reached the right balance here on what can be perceived as a very vexatious issue. I congratulate the department and the Home Office on bringing these regulations forward.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this instrument and other Members of this Committee for their enlightening speeches. I welcome the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, after a limited period away.
As we consider these regulations, it is important that the framework for scientific procedures on animals continues to minimise avoidable suffering and reflect current best practice. We support the technical purpose of these regulations, consolidating assimilated law into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They provide a clearer domestic legislative framework following our exit from the European Union. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for making further inquiries on the detail of the reset Bill and the context in which this will operate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.
In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.
However, there is one question that I must put to the Minister because it goes to the very foundation of the legal authority underpinning this instrument. The matter has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The regulations are made under Sections 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Explanatory Memorandum itself acknowledges, at paragraph 6.8, that any regulation made under those powers
“must be made by no later than 23 June 2026”.
That deadline is now a matter of days away. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after 23 June, should further technical consolidation of assimilated law in this area be required, whether by way of correction, clarification or updating the powers in Sections 12 and 14, which will no longer be available? The only route would be primary legislation, which, as the memorandum itself observes, is a considerably more burdensome vehicle for what may in some cases be very minor adjustments. Will the Government set out how they intend to address that gap? Are there further instruments in this area still in preparation that need to be made before the deadline falls?
I am satisfied that this instrument is legally sound and practically sensible. We support it, but I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on the question of what comes next.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.
I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.
I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.
A number of points were made around the Brexit reset Bill. I am afraid I cannot comment in detail on the content of that Bill. What we are trying to do is to give statutory footing to the existing procedures to date. I will look at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made with regard to 23 June, but my understanding is that we have brought all the changes forward to ensure that this is now in UK domestic legislation without ties to the EU, and that this instrument covers all the necessary requirements. I will check that, because it is important that we do so, but that is my understanding of the situation to date.
In response to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned a number of points, Section 3 of the code will be republished and we will seek to update the section that he mentioned. I have commissioned the ASC to look into how we deliver leading best practice for animals in science. Again, that goes to the heart of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made from the Front Bench.
Regulatory oversight remains the responsibility of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which operates under regulatory principles that include proportionality, transparency and accountability. Related to points made in the debate, if there are instances of non-compliance, the regulator retains a wide range of enforcement powers, from advice and licence variation through to suspension, revocation and, in the most serious cases, referral for prosecution. Nothing in the regulations changes that. Enforcement decisions are evidence-based and risk-informed. The aim of the instrument and the work that we are doing is to secure the best outcomes for animal welfare and ensure that the regulatory framework operates proportionately and effectively while driving continuous improvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned Herbie’s law. I understand the interest and concern around developing a proposed framework for replacing animals in medical research by 2035. We tried not to set arbitrary deadlines in our document as they could prove undeliverable. Instead, we have set out a science-based approach that provides clear timelines for specific deliverable actions as evidence and capability are developed. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s new strategy sets out a long-term vision for a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated except in exceptional circumstances, and even those might be areas where we can push forward as medicine and science develop. However, it is not yet possible to replace all animal use, given the complexity of whole biological systems.
However, I assure her and those supporters of Herbie’s law that the Government are clear that progress must be led by science. Progress must be made, but in a way that does not lose the benefits that my noble friend mentioned. We are all living healthier lives today because of the outcomes of research and investment, however difficult and challenging this is at certain points in time.
I hope I have answered all the points in front of the Committee today. Those that need further investigation I will respond to in due course. If there are no further comments, I commend this SI to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, we probably do know but are not able to tell. That is a convention of this House because it is important. We have not published the Bill. We have to publish the Bill and, at some point, we will. With that—
Lord Moylan (Con)
I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I ask a further question on this point. After 23 June, it will not be possible for the Home Office or whichever other department it is—this will arise again in the next debate—to bring forward measures using statutory instruments to adjust these regulations. It will have to be done by primary legislation, or a framework will have to be put in place by an Act of Parliament that allows those changes to be made by SI. The tenor of the Minister’s answers to the questions asked of him suggests that that framework will be put in place by the Brexit reset Bill. That has not been said before, as far as I am aware. Is it the Government’s position that the so-called powers gap will be addressed, as the Minister implies, by the Brexit reset Bill or by some other Act of Parliament, of which we have no knowledge yet?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had. I was asked a question about the Brexit reset Bill and whether any further information was required in that Bill to deal with this issue. I have said that I cannot comment on the Brexit reset Bill, but I also said, in response to the question about 23 June, that our assessment is that this SI puts us into the position that we are in, in relation to all the assimilation required.
As a third point, I also said that, as this has been raised today, I will test it again with officials outside the Committee to make sure that it is the case. It is my understanding. The Brexit reset Bill is a matter for future discussion with primary legislation on a number of issues related to the Brexit reset. This SI puts in place what we already have, with the same mechanisms that we already have, but, if there are issues around 23 June, I will examine them with officials and write to the noble Lord. With that, I commend the instrument to the Grand Committee.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.
These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.
The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.
The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The statutory instrument allows airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the UK. These are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times is greater than the available capacity. As I said, the regulations apply for the summer and winter 2026 scheduling seasons. Airlines will be able to hand back up to 10% of their slots without losing their historic entitlement to these slots in the following equivalent season.
This 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 these 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 some flexibility to adjust their schedules to mitigate impacts of the conflict in the Middle East, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is time-limited, because it applies only to the summer and winter 2026 seasons, ensuring a proportionate response to current circumstances.
The regulations also allow returned slots to be reallocated where possible. This helps to ensure that valuable airport capacity is not left unused if the situation in the Middle East were to take a definitive positive turn. It also enables airlines that are less exposed to wider impacts of the conflict in the Middle East to step in and make use of returned slots to meet passenger demand. The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government undertook a targeted consultation with airlines, airports and other sector stakeholders on our proposal for alleviation for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. The consultation received a total of 59 responses. There was strong support among airlines for the proposed slots hand-back provision, albeit that most wanted the hand-back threshold to be 20%. Airports were generally opposed to alleviation being granted and wanted a lower threshold for hand-back. The Government have therefore adopted a balanced position, providing a 10% hand-back for summer and winter 2026. This gives airlines enough room to manage a genuine operational challenge if it arises, while making sure that they cannot use it on cancellations that go well beyond what the situation requires.
Furthermore, in the light of the consultation, and airport responses in particular, we have ensured that slots that are handed back can be reallocated. This ensures that where airlines are able to make use of these slots, they can be picked up, so that valuable airport capacity is not wasted, striking an appropriate balance between flexibility for airlines and efficient use of airport infra- structure. During times of crisis or widespread destruction —for example, during Covid-19—the Government have stepped in to provide alleviation from slot usage requirements over and above the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions set out in the slots regulation. Most recently, in summer 2022, the Government implemented a 30% hand-back to stabilise airport operations and reduce disruption for passengers.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. I will now address the comments that it raised. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views was received. While many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers 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 and, where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or rerouting. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime—JNUS—is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations. This measure addresses this gap.
On the final points raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. Finally, the powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026, under the retained EU law Act. Replacement powers are being sought through the civil aviation Bill and any future use will depend on the prevailing circumstances.
The policy intent behind these measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. First and foremost, they support better planning for passengers. By enabling airlines to adjust schedules in advance, passengers are more likely to receive early notice of cancellations, rather than facing last-minute disruption at the airport.
Noble Lords may be considering why the Government are acting now, before any acute or system-wide shortage of fuel has materialised. The answer is that this is a preventive, forward-looking measure. The disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East is already affecting airline operations, costs and demand patterns. Waiting until those pressures result in widespread cancellations or operational instability would risk greater disruption to passengers and the sector. By acting now, the Government are enabling airlines to plan ahead, adjust schedules in an orderly way and provide passengers with meaningful notice of changes, rather than reacting at the last minute.
Secondly, these regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights. By removing the pressure to operate flights purely to retain slots, we expect fewer near-empty aircraft in the skies. This enables more efficient use of jet fuel stocks and aviation network capacity.
Thirdly, they help protect connectivity. Airport slots underpin route networks that have been built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historic rights, despite temporary disruption, helps ensure that those connections can be restored once conditions stabilise.
Finally, these measures support the financial stability of airlines. Without them, if an airline was aware of issues that would make it difficult to operate a flight, it would face a choice between continuing with plans to run it anyway or cancelling it at the last minute and potentially losing that slot at the airport permanently.
To close, these regulations represent a practical, proportionate response to a specific and challenging set of circumstances. They maintain the integrity of the slot allocation system while introducing temporary flexibility to reflect real-world pressures. They support airlines, benefit passengers and help avoid unnecessary environmental harm. Above all, they are a measured intervention that is time-limited, targeted and grounded in the realities facing the aviation sector today. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the balance that has been struck and will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.
As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.
The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.
Allowing airlines to have their slots put back and then used at a later date seems to make sense, except for the fact that, as I read it, the measure ultimately talks about a five-year term with a review. The Minister said that it is a short-term measure for 2026. Can he confirm to me that that is the case? Can he also confirm that the other element written in here somewhere—the five-year term and review—is not relevant to this point? I would be very grateful for some confirmation on that.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is a core part of the current responsibility of the department in difficult times internationally. It is absolutely the right thing to do to try to ease pressures on airlines in this environment, as the current geopolitical situation has made many routes much less viable than they were and led to cutbacks around the world in the number of planes flying at the time being.
However—and I think we will come back to this at greater length in debates on the forthcoming aviation Bill—that we are having this debate today indicates that this is a heavily regulated area. We inherited a lot of that regulation from the European Union, and I had hoped, and it remains my view, that this sector should be regulated less than it is. It probably should not need a debate in Parliament to enable an airline, in an international crisis, to take a decision to scale back some of its activities temporarily without the risk of long-term damage to its business. So, in my view, this debate should not need to happen but, in the context of the current laws, it is absolutely essential.
I have a particular concern that I want to raise with the Minister about the impact on some individual airlines. The choice of 5% or 10% does not make complete sense to me, in the context of an environment where the most affected routes are those through the Middle East. I will take a practical example: if an airline like Emirates had two flights a day to a UK airport, they would not currently be viable because of the geopolitical situation. The reality is that tourist numbers to the Middle East have dropped very sharply. I had an email myself today from a hotel in Oman that I stayed in some while back begging me to come back and offering me a good deal to do so, so there is no doubt that numbers have fallen sharply. It is therefore very probable that running two planes a day is not viable for the time being and you can afford only, in practical business terms, to run one plane a day. That is a 50% drop. But if you can only cut 5% or 10%, that does not quite work arithmetically. I am slightly concerned that the inflexibility of the numbers in this regulation will not fit with the practical reality facing a number of airlines, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments about that.
My final point is that there were a couple of airlines that did not want this to happen. I am very interested to hear from the Minister why that was. There may be practical reasons, or this may be simply anti-competitive pressures—we can imagine one or two airlines that might want to get in the way of sensible changes to ease pressures on their competitors.
In particular, I want to press the Minister on the issue of the 5% or 10% figures, because it seems to me that for some airlines, if you have very large numbers of slots for Heathrow or Gatwick, fine, that makes perfect sense, but if you have a relatively small number of slots, then you are worse affected than other airlines by the geopolitical situation and it may very well not work at all. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.
These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.
There is, too, a broader question of balance. The airline sector is under pressure. We recognise the need to support its long-term sustainability, but we worry that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly on passengers, especially leisure travellers, who are less able to absorb sudden change. We feel that we need to be careful that a measure intended to provide resilience does not instead create avoidable uncertainty for customers.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the likely pattern of cancellations under these rules, including whether certain groups of passengers are more likely to be affected than others? Secondly, what discussions has the department had with airports about the impact of these arrangements on their income, operations and resilience—particularly given that, as I understand it, two airlines opposed this proposal and airports across the board were against it? Thirdly, what evidence led the Government to settle on this particular threshold when airlines had sought a different level of alleviation?
On a point of clarity, I note that the instrument is made under powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Can the Minister confirm precisely how these powers interact with the timetable for these regulations?
Last but by no means least, I return to the impact on passengers. We understand why the Government are seeking to avoid unnecessary flights being operated simply in order to retain these slots, but the answer cannot be to shift the cost of uncertainty on to travellers. If an airline believes that it cannot operate a slot, there must be a clear and fair mechanism for dealing with that in a way that protects consumers as far as is possible. For that reason, although we recognise the intention behind the regulations, we have some scepticism that this is not entirely the right balance. However, I look forward to hearing more persuasive arguments from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I had not meant to speak; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking out of turn. The noble Baroness’s questions have prompted two questions from me.
Flight cancellations have been trailed in the press for the past two months. I declare an interest because I am due to fly away in August and September, and I am sure that many families will have already arranged their holidays. We have not seen these cancellations yet. Can the Minister confirm that that is because these regulations have not yet been adopted and that, once they have been adopted, cancellations will happen?
My second question flows naturally from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the impact on consumers. Obviously, the regulations before us give airlines the power to cancel slots for a temporary period and give passengers 14 days’ notice. Passengers used to be covered by the EU package directive, which is a different department. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would be great if the Minister could write to me on that. He will know that, if your flight is cancelled in July, August or September, which make up peak holiday season because of the school holidays, the chance of you booking another flight for a price similar to the one that you originally booked is nil, so there are going to be huge oncosts. I do not know whether the department has an answer for that. Also, the chance of finding accommodation on an alternative date will probably be slim. Is the department aware that there will be some deeply unhappy families who might be affected in this way?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have cast my remarks mainly in the form of a series of questions. Before I come to the first question, let me just say that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has put her finger on a very important point. The effect of these regulations is to transfer potential costs that would fall on airlines to passengers and airports. There may be a very good reason why you want to protect the airlines in this way, but one has to recognise that that is the economic effect of what is happening. If you can cancel a flight with no penalty, the circumstances described by my noble friend will of course arise in relation to families. There are also problems for airports, because they have no revenue from that flight and other connecting flights are discombobulated, if I may put it that way, as a consequence.
It is true that they are given by these regulations a 14-day window in which to reallocate the flight. My understanding is that, when the instrument was first drafted and consulted on, they would not have been allowed to reallocate flights at all, so the 14 days are a concession to their interests. But, quite seriously, no large airline will decide to operate a service at 14 days’ notice, because it will not have any passengers. The passengers will not know about it sufficiently in advance, except in extreme circumstances. I want everyone to understand that this is what is happening: potential airline costs are being transferred to passengers and airports.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and for the thoughtful points that have been raised. I will attempt to answer as many as I can now. On those that I cannot, I will write to the noble Lord concerned and to other noble Lords present.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who has considerable experience. I cannot find in the draft statutory instrument any reference to a five-year term. The measure put forward today is about only the summer season and the winter season of 2026. He will find the permanent proposition for slot regulation in the civil aviation Bill, which I have no doubt he is studying more or less as we speak. I hope that will satisfy him, but if not we can discuss it afterwards.
My understanding about the three types of airport and what might trigger a change in categorisation is that it is triggered by the airport itself and by the level of potential use and, therefore, congestion. The company itself, Airport Coordination Limited, is clearly very efficient, with 40 employees, but there is a wider point that goes to some of the questions. A lot of this is about the stability of both the airlines and the airports sector. We are good at this in Britain, and we want the airline sector to prosper. We have to give it some stability in circumstances in which the international situation has destabilised it a bit.
I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, about the impact on individual airlines. He is clearly right that airlines that fly directly to the Middle East will be more affected than those that do not. On the impact of the wider geopolitical circumstances for any potential fuel shortage, I am very happy to confirm that the Government do not currently believe that there is an airline fuel shortage, but there could be in future, and if there is, we need to make adequate preparation for it in advance. It is quite hard to know where that might apply, so we have to apply some general thought to how we manage this. A lot of what is going on here is about giving some stability and certainty to airlines to resume normal business when they can, and it is about what happens, proportionately, to airports that rely on a throughput of passengers.
Lord Grayling (Con)
The question I raised with the Minister is absolutely central to the Government’s decision to take a 5% or 10% figure. He said that the airlines wanted more. I explained a very specific circumstance in which one particular airline—there will be many others affected in that way—would need more. He therefore needs to explain why the Government have fixed on this figure when the airlines said that it was not the right figure and common sense says that many would need more.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. The answer is that the airlines provided little or no evidence of any figure but would prefer more because that would give them more flexibility in circumstances where airports would have preferred this not to happen.
Lord Grayling (Con)
I am not interested in what the airlines said they wanted, because the department took the decision to alight on a particular figure. The Minister has not explained why the department took that decision, when simple common sense says that many airlines would need a different figure because of the basic arithmetic I described to him earlier.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to that point, whether or not it satisfies the noble Lord, is that we have to do something in general in these circumstances. Previous circumstances of various sorts have produced different figures. The Covid figure was 30%; I do not know how that was calculated. We feel the need to do something because we have to give some certainty both to airlines and to potential airline passengers. I take his point about the geographical differences and will certainly write to him further about what individual airlines in those circumstances said. I have no evidence that certain airlines proposed huge differences, but I will certainly go away and find out about that.
Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 15 April 2026.
This statutory instrument is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ 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. It helps implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried out 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 it can ratify it. This statutory instrument will help enable that through amendments to the marine licensing regime.
Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I want to begin by underlining why it is so important that this Committee supports progressing this legislation. The BBNJ agreement is an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet and are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species.
Primary legislation was needed in order to implement fully our BBNJ obligations. Accordingly, the BBNJ Bill 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 that is needed for the UK to fully implement the agreement. This instrument is part of that work; 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.
This instrument helps implement 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. This instrument makes provisions 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. However, to date, only two marine licences have been issued for such activities since 2011. This instrument extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to types of activity 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 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 environmental impact assessment, as set out in the BBNJ agreement. This exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full environmental impact assessment. An exemption is also introduced for the removal of specific subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to consistently fall below the BBNJ screening threshold.
Alongside this instrument, I highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence. These are activities that are 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. This ensures 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 as 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 instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities regulated under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This instrument also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This 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. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument. We support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—BBNJ—agreement and welcome this SI, 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 that until now have been beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
We note that the SI introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk, such as the removal of cables, as described by the Minister. Although we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, we believe that it will be important that these exemptions are kept under regular review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. Although we support the implementation of this treaty and this SI, we remain clear that the Government must ensure that the new licensing exemptions do not in turn become loopholes in the future and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.
We think that some aspects warrant a bit of closer scrutiny, particularly the new exemptions introduced through Articles 39, 40 and 41. Those raise questions about the breadth of the regime. Although we understand in principle the exemption where a screening opinion concludes that an environmental impact assessment is not required, it rests heavily on an assumption of low environmental risk and the current low volume of applications. When I read up on this, I was absolutely mesmerised by the fact that only two licences exist at the moment. It is quite a large statutory instrument for just two operators.
Although only a small number of applications have been received to date, that position may change. There may be a discovery, and I guess the Government are trying to be ahead of the curve of a sudden gold rush, in effect, of dredging for essential minerals in the deep ocean. So I congratulate the Government on this, as it feels a bit ahead of the curve and that is really unusual. That is good. However, I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the UK itself was a little behind the curve in comparison with one or two other countries.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.
This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.
More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.
Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a
“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.
When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.
As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.
The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.
Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and a safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. This instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium, to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England. The instrument is a routine and technical measure, which will ensure that food supplements regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements.
The regulatory approach taken here is well established. Where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice, and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place. Noble Lords will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards.
Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used. A related statutory instrument already laid under the negative procedure adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established. An SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before the Grand Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and will ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.
Food law is a devolved matter. This instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplements regulations and Northern Ireland applies the existing EU equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor Framework.
It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory. It does not require any business to use this ingredient or change its products. The use of this new optional substance will initially affect only the applicant who requested this authorisation and who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.
Food supplements legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, the substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow this substance to be used in GB as soon as possible.
To conclude, these regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplements regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements, and they continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise for the fourth and final time. I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose. On these Benches, the priority is a fair deal for consumers, which means that all food supplements must meet the highest possible standards of quality and safety. The Food Standards Agency has assessed this form of magnesium as safe and on that basis we do not oppose its authorisation, but we have one or two questions about how the purity criteria will work in practice.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.
The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.
The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.
I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.
What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.
While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.
Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 March 2026 and consist of one of the briefest SIs that I have had the pleasure to introduce in this House. The SI consists of two clauses, one of which is a citation and commencement clause. The other one is a very straightforward amendment to Schedule 5 of the Energy Prices Act 2022, which amends the period to which certain powers in respect to Northern Ireland may be exercised from 26 months to six years. Therefore, this is a very brief SI, but I think it will be helpful to noble Lords to explain why this is being put forward today.
In the Autumn Budget on 26 November last year, the Chancellor announced changes we would be making to reduce costs on energy bills in Great Britain. We committed at that time to working with the Northern Ireland Executive if they chose to develop a comparable offer. These regulations show us delivering on that commitment.
In Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the energy bill changes rely on Energy Prices Act powers subject to different sunset provisions. On this occasion we are altering the sunset relevant in Northern Ireland to facilitate the Executive’s delivery. In Great Britain, the changes announced were to discontinue the energy company obligation home insulation scheme, and to transfer 75% of renewables obligation costs in respect of domestic supply to the Exchequer. The energy company obligation has never applied in Northern Ireland. As a result, the Executive’s comparable proposal to reduce bills relates only to the latter scheme. The Northern Ireland renewables obligation is a scheme to incentivise renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland. As with the renewables obligation in GB, it closed to new applications in 2017.
Following ongoing official-level engagement, my colleague the Minister for Energy Consumers received a letter from the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland on 2 March. Minister Archibald asked that we take forward Energy Prices Act regulations to support her department’s powers to deliver. We laid these regulations two weeks later.
As noble Lords may know, the context here is that most energy policy issues are transferred matters for the Executive in Northern Ireland to decide on. We in the UK Parliament have a role in these regulations because the primary legislation was passed in 2022 when the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting. None the less, I should be clear that the powers we are ensuring that the Northern Ireland department can access relate to a transferred matter and are entirely for it to exercise. It will be for the Executive to announce the full details of the policy they are taking forward.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his concluding words acknowledging Northern Ireland’s unique dependence on heating oil and how his department will maintain a vigilant eye.
There are issues of timing around this SI, which I am sure will be debated this evening. There were also issues of timing around the last SI that the Minister introduced, in March. I had substantial doubts about that one, more than I have about this one, but, in both cases, I am mindful of the fact that there has been serious dialogue with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. Although I was very uneasy about the last SI, which was on greenhouse gases and was introduced in the Chamber, I did not vote against it because the fundamental job of the Government here is to pay close attention to and have a proper dialogue with the Executive in Northern Ireland.
That said, I will say something in favour of this SI, as against the last one. The danger with the last SI on greenhouse gases was that paragraph 51 of the Windsor Framework commits the United Kingdom Government to ensuring that Northern Ireland goods appear in the UK market without any advantage to either Scotland or Wales, on exactly the same equality of treatment. That seemed to be a major problem—an implicit conflict—because the last statutory instrument favoured Scotland. But this one, by and large, is driven by a proper and correct concern with the future of energy supply in Northern Ireland, and I thank the Minister for his introduction to it.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome and support the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026—and particularly the continued effort to ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland receive appropriate protection from the continued volatility of energy costs following the war in the Middle East. I thank the Minister for introducing this.
We are supportive of the Government’s removal of the energy obligations and ECO policies from consumer energy bills that were, in the UK, brought in under the Autumn Budget. Consumers in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit, as consumers in Great Britain have, from these powers. We welcome this SI, but I have some questions for the Minister.
It is ultimately for the Northern Ireland DfE to decide how to use these powers. We welcome the work that is being done to provide it with support in designing that system. That inter-government co-operation is welcome. I note that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised, as drafted in the Explanatory Memorandum. I recognise that the Minister might not be able to answer this, but does he have an idea of when the work on this will be completed from the DfE in Northern Ireland? As has been mentioned, it is extremely important that these measures are put in place so that consumers in Northern Ireland can enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts in the rest of the UK.
It is well understood, and the Minister mentioned, that some 61% of households in Northern Ireland are dependent on oil central heating as their primary source. Those figures are from 2024 or 2025. I recognise some of the work that the Government have done since the conflict in the Middle East on trying to prevent price gouging. The Minister has mentioned the £53 million support package that has been provided. We welcome that package, but the Minister will recognise that there is more to be done there. Knowing that Northern Ireland is dependent on this fuel oil and that those prices have been particularly hard hit because of the conflict, will some of these measures help to deal with those problems?
More generally, what further consideration is being given by the DfE in Northern Ireland and GB Energy, as a community energy scheme, to replacing those outdated heating systems and moving to more cost-effective and efficient heat pump technology? Is that perhaps a project for GB Energy, a community energy project? Has any consideration been given to that in government? Also, can the Government outline how long these amended measures are intended for? Is it expected that they will remain in force until 2030, as is possible under the SI? What criteria will determine whether they are withdrawn or extended? We support this instrument and have no objection to it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this instrument underpins the measures that we have already debated. It creates no new powers and His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of it. More broadly, as the Minister knows, we do not believe that the Government can lower the structural cost of energy for families and businesses in Britain simply by moving policy costs around from energy bills on to tax bills. But I accept that we have debated the content of the RO and the policy context in which this SI has been brought forward at some length already.
This measure is very specific to Northern Ireland. It is something of a surprise because it extends by six years from a date that has already passed, 3 April. So we are in an unusual position whereby this does not apply but is going to apply retrospectively. I regret that; it should have been brought back at a much earlier stage.
The questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just now were very relevant. The Explanatory Memorandum specifically states:
“The UK Government is working with the Northern Ireland Executive as they consider developing a comparable offer”—
at least they know that that is what is intended—
“to the RO to Exchequer policy, and the exact design of this comparable offer has not yet been finalised”.
That makes it clear that we are pretty close to it. We are just short of the exact design.
It is useful for the Committee, I think, to hear from the Minister a bit more detail on the status of the discussions and the status of the project that is being proposed so that we are not simply writing a blank cheque. I accept that, elsewhere in the SI, there is an important recognition that this is clearly a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but, given that they have used the words “exact design”, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to provide details to Members of the Committee—not least Members from Northern Ireland—so that they can study them following this debate.
I appreciate that the EM goes on to say that this is an enabling measure and
“does not itself provide financial support or determine the design, timing or announcement of any scheme in Northern Ireland”.
However, we are already well on the road to a final proposal. My noble friend Lord Bew and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, focused on the timing and how long it will take. Given that we now know that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised —we are clearly making very good progress—are we talking about six weeks or six months? Are we talking about a year? Why are we talking about six years, rather than three or 16, in the SI?
I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us clarity on the status of the negotiations with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive and on what the Northern Ireland Executive are thinking about in this context; after all, they have known about this since the Budget. I ask him to provide as much detail as possible so that Members who are interested in matters relating to Northern Ireland are well briefed. I say that with renewed emphasis today. Regrettably, yesterday evening, we had a debate in the Chamber in which there was real concern from Members from Northern Ireland—or Members with a particular interest in Northern Ireland; they happened to be from Northern Ireland as well. They were worried that Northern Ireland was a sort of afterthought and that the policy had not been properly designed in recognition of the fact that Northern Ireland is absolutely an inherent and important part of the United Kingdom.
There is a danger of a similar interpretation with this measure. Quickly coming to the House with an SI that recognises that the timing has now lapsed and that we need a new extension does not look good unless the Minister can demonstrate clearly that there has been detailed discussion of what exactly this policy is going to look like, with information about the design of the comparable offer given to the Committee and the House; I hope that the Minister will now be able to give that.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI. I hope that he will be able to provide much further information on it either today, in this Committee, or in writing.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their useful contributions to this short debate. I hope I will be able to provide some of the detail that they were looking for on this measure, and particularly on the enhanced sunset clause that noble Lords are now considering. But, before I do that, I have not yet had an opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, back to his slightly amended place in this House, and to say how delighted I was to see his return. I look forward to the many occasions that are now possible for our convivial and constructive debates across the Chamber on the future of energy policy.
Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
It is unfortunate that your Lordships have me again for this SI, but I hope I can be brief and to the point on this one. I believe that this particular SI produces a number of fairly technical but pretty minor changes to the way contracts for difference are bid for and allocated, and I hope we will gain the approval of noble Lords this afternoon.
These regulations were laid before the House on 20 April 2026. As I alluded to, the statutory instrument makes several minor and technical amendments to improve the operational efficiency of the contracts for difference scheme during the assessment of applications. Subject to Parliament, the Government intend to introduce these targeted and practical measures in time for allocation round 8, which opens to applications on 20 July—so there is some haste in this procedure this afternoon.
The contracts for difference 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, the Energy Secretary outlined a package of measures to go further and faster on clean power in response to events in the Middle East. That included bringing forward the opening of AR8 to July to provide certainty for clean energy investors.
The most recent allocation round, allocation round 7, alone secured 14.7 gigawatts of clean, homegrown generating capacity, across 201 new projects. AR7 built on the success of AR6 in September 2024, which secured over 7 gigawatts of renewable capacity across Great Britain. It is worth just looking at the upward curve of the amount of capacity procured in those two rounds. We will not go back to allocation round 5, but certainly in those two rounds there was a very successful allocation outcome.
Indeed, AR7 was the most successful renewables auction in European history. The AR7 reforms we introduced to boost competition and investor confidence secured renewable capacity at strike prices 40% lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas power plant. These achievements show how central the CfD scheme is to our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 and strengthen Britain’s energy security.
The Government keep the CfD scheme under review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. The regulations will make the following three amendments to improve the future operation of the scheme.
First, they will enable the National Energy System Operator, NESO, which is responsible for the allocation round process, to correct certain types of errors it makes during the assessment of applications by issuing new or amended qualification decisions where evidence supports this. 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. Although eligibility checks are very robust, a larger number of applications increases the risk of errors in assessment decisions, and this amendment will ensure greater consistency and fairness in how the CfD eligibility requirements are applied.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to listen to the Minister. He is the one Minister who, I know, if we asked for a one-and-a-half-hour explanation, he would be able to do it without notes because of his deep knowledge. When I looked at the Explanatory Note, I saw that it said that these regulations concern arrangements for determining whether renewables projects qualify for contracts for difference. I want to address that theme about a specific area.
The Minister mentioned AR5. Of course, AR5 was pretty disastrous, generally, but there was a bright spot in it. It is an area where I have to congratulate the previous Government on a very wise decision in including geothermal energy for the first time. I was privileged, three months ago, to officially open the United Downs geothermal electricity station down in Cornwall, near where I am resident. I have been a proponent of geothermal for some time.
I have a question for the Minister in that area, about determining which renewables qualify for CfD rounds. Obviously, the great by-product of some of this technology is the critical mineral of lithium, which is really important to our future industrial success in this country. Do the Government envisage geothermal continuing to be one of the areas that is ring-fenced as a technology in future rounds?
My second question for the Minister goes back to his past when he was a Member of Parliament in Southampton, where geothermal energy was important for heating. Given the Government’s strong will to broaden the application of CfDs, geothermal in many ways is even more suited for district heating, beyond combined heat and power schemes, which can be CfD related. What is the Minister’s view as to whether the Government see geothermal heating being part of a future CfD round?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction—clearly, this stuff is more complicated than eBay. I also thank my noble friend for raising important questions about geothermal that I hope the Minister will come to answer, but we support the inclusion and further development of that technology within our renewables energy mix.
These regulations are modest but worthwhile technical reforms to the contracts for difference scheme, and they have our support. As we know, auction rounds are the central part of our drive to clean energy, the energy transition 2030 and net zero by 2050. As the Explanatory Note sets out, competition has grown, so it is essential and welcome that, between rounds, the Government are undertaking these fundamental reviews of the way in which these complicated auction rounds work in practice. We welcome the fact that that has happened with stakeholders and that the Government are looking to improve and streamline these systems.
I turn to the reforms themselves, the first of which involves NESO reviewing the process for non-qualification decisions, as the Minister set out. Applicants will now be able to submit new evidence when requesting a review. We welcome this; it is overdue and is clearly a sensible reform. When an applicant has got so far in the process, it would be silly not to do that for the sake of one mistake on the form. As the Minister said, we know that many AR7 applications failed due to very minor omissions, so this is welcome. Allowing corrections at review stage will reduce unnecessary exclusion and improve fairness.
The second reform allows the delivery body to amend non-qualification decisions where the framework permits. This introduces much-needed flexibility into what was previously a perhaps overly rigid process and enables errors to be corrected without needing to process further to costly appeals.
Thirdly, Regulations 7 and 8 strengthen the treatment of pending applications. The definition is extended so that those still within appeal windows can submit sealed bids, while Regulation 8 ensures that those bids cannot be disclosed. This is an important safeguard for the integrity of the auction process. I will not ask the Minister to give us a two-hour explanation.
Taken together, these changes are administrative but meaningful and they will help make the process more streamlined and efficient. They reduce barriers, improve fairness and strengthen confidence in the system. As the Minister said, they come at a significant moment in our transition. As he pointed out, allocation round 7 was a landmark—the largest in European history, with 14.7 gigawatts across 201 projects and over £22 billion of investment, and the largest of our rounds to date. Of course, coming after the problems we had with a previous round, it was extremely welcome that it was successful.
I also welcome the fact that the Government have made the decision to bring AR8 forward to July 2026. That maintains momentum and sends a clear signal of the UK’s commitment to the clean power 2030 ambitions. That is, in turn, good for industry and for showing a clear path to investment in our renewable future.
I have a couple of questions generally, since we are here debating this. On contract length for CfDs, we welcome the fact that the Government have already extended the contracts from 15 to 20 years. The Minister will be aware that it is my party’s policy that we would like to see those CfDs extended further, to 25 years, with the asset lifetime stretching from 25 to 30 years. Are the Government open to and actively considering that? Is it on the agenda?
Obviously, the strike prices at the last auction were above those in previous rounds of auctions. There are several reasons for that, primarily global inflation pressures. There is a need in the next round to make sure that we set a competitive price, one that recognises that inflation is there, so I have a quick question for the Minister about the calculations that the Government are making for AR8, because obviously inflationary pressures are still there—in fact they are exaggerating a bit—while making sure that we get a successful auction at a good price.
It was in the press today, and I presume it is accurate, that the Government have now secured grid connections for half of the projects needed to get us to clean power 2030, so I am pleased to see that the grid reforms are having an impact and that we are making that progress. But we have a lot coming through the system, so I ask for reassurance from the Minister: a lot of projects are bunched together, so I want to be sure that a product of our own success is not that we create bottlenecks in the system.
In the last round, AR7, we actually secured only 1.3 gigawatts of onshore wind. I recognise that the Government have removed the effective planning restrictions that previously existed. To my mind, there is more to do. A bit like my noble friend who raised geothermal, I wanted to ask the Minister a quick question: what more can be done to further kick-start onshore wind and onshore wind investment? In particular, what is the Government’s thinking on AR8?
To conclude, these regulations are sensible and proportionate. The Government have clearly worked with stakeholders and have stakeholder support. We welcome the regulations and are pleased to see that really detailed reviews are happening between these essential and important auction processes.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very kind opening remarks, which I greatly appreciate. It is good to be back for what is, as he says, always a constructive and convivial exchange of views with him. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, even in the very late nights that I anticipate we will spend debating the energy Bill when it comes before the House. In the four or five months that I did this job before leaving the House to come back in a new incarnation, I was deeply grateful to his private office as well for always being highly professional and responding quickly to any requests from this side of the House. I would be grateful if he could pass that on.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, except that I want to correct him on one point, which is very difficult, because his knowledge is as extensive on the subject of energy as the Minister’s. When I was Minister for Energy, back in 1990, we launched the first support for geothermal energy. It was part of the non-fossil fuel obligation, which was a precursor of the current regimes. We had a series of technology bands, and one of them was geothermal. We felt it was very important that it should be recognised as an important part of the renewable energy programme moving forward. It was a long time ago, and it may not have made huge progress in the intervening decades, but nevertheless it was certainly identified as an important part of that work at that time. I echo what he says about its continued importance in the context of renewable energy.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their very constructive and interesting contributions. I will attempt to address them as best I can. I do not think that I will have to write to anybody but, if necessary, I will make sure that it is done.
I have worked very successfully with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, over a number of years in all-party groups and as shadow Energy Minister, and have always found him to be very constructive and helpful. He has been particularly helpful today by raising geothermal, which for a long time has been one of the issues closest to my heart. The Southampton geothermal scheme came in seven years before the Government recognised that geothermal had some interest and future. I acknowledge that this was in 1990, but the Southampton scheme had been up and running for seven years before that. However, that is a very minor point.
The noble Lord put important points forward concerning what is likely to happen to geothermal. Do we think that it is a very important technology for the future? Yes, and it is a very important technology in terms of the rollout of heat networks that is taking place. Also, being one important low-carbon source for informing those heat networks, it is pretty good for ensuring that, if you have a low-carbon alternative to what is normally the case in heat networks—a high-carbon gas engine—going into the scheme, geothermal can be a very efficient, long-lasting and virtually permanent alternative to that gas engine putting the heat around the network.
There are questions to answer about the capex involved with that process and how that is undertaken—whether jointly with the heat network or in addition to a heat network that is already existent. There are also questions on how geothermal may or may not be eligible for the AR process. The noble Lord knows that geothermal is not just one thing. Sedimentary geothermal is normally drilled at shallower depths, gets heat up from aquifers and associated activities and then goes through a heat transfer arrangement. Then you have much deeper geothermal, which can go far deeper and penetrate, for example, hot rocks. That is what is happening in Cornwall, which the noble Lord opened up. I was unfortunately unable to be there on the opening day, but I was very glad that he was the person chosen to open those proceedings.
The noble Lord will know that those particular schemes, of which there are three—one of them is now operational—are all about producing mainly electricity with, interestingly, lithium extraction as a by-product, but they are not strictly comparable with sedimentary geothermal, which is all about heat elsewhere in the country. Indeed, there are much greater prospects than were hitherto thought for both sedimentary thermal and hot rocks. As the noble Lord mentioned, it was almost a lucky accident of AR5, you might say, but the miserable outcome of AR5 was tempered somewhat by the fact that, because there were no bids in the main pot, geothermal actually managed to get its bids in at that particular point.
Bringing that together for AR8 and future allocation rounds, clearly, allocation rounds are based on the production of electricity, so purely heat-based geothermal would not qualify and would need to be supported— if it is to be supported—by means other than the allocation round process. So, as far as AR8 is concerned, the question of the pots and so on is still being determined, but it is certainly the case that purely heat-based geothermal will not qualify in future. Then we have the question of the United Downs schemes. We await the outcome of the other two schemes. Of course, they have a great deal on their plate at the moment, so I am not sure whether they will be bidding for a lot more schemes right this minute, but that is where we stand as far as geothermal and allocation rounds are concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the extension of the CfD from 15 years to 20 years in the most recent rounds. I note his party’s policy to take that even further. The extension from 15 years to 20 years was certainly a measure to make sure that those people who are bidding into the system have good, regulated cover for their product for a reasonable number of years; obviously, that then reflects on to the amortisation of the capital process and the security that that gives. Clearly, that was a factor in making sure that so many people got into the allocation rounds, bid and succeeded.
Whether that 20-year figure needs extending further, as far as offshore wind is concerned, will need to be looked at in terms of the experience of AR8 and, possibly, AR9—and, indeed, the practical outcome of AR7. So, it appears at first sight that it has been a very positive extension, but, of course, as the noble Earl will know, there were different levels of CfD provision for, for example, Hinkley. So it is not the case that CfDs are “one size fits all” as far as those terms are concerned.
The noble Earl also asked what is being done about onshore wind. There is a lot happening as far as onshore is concerned, in addition to offshore, in terms of its access to the AR process, from which it was previously banned, in effect, and in terms of not just powering new onshore schemes but repowering existing onshore schemes. He will know that the intention is to bring repowering into the AR process, if that can be done, which would in itself be a considerable step forward—for example, in the threefold additions that one can get from repowering on sites that have hitherto worked to a much lower capacity in the past. I think I have responded to the points from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but if he does not think so, I can certainly take them up in writing.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Refugee Move-on Period Pilot Evaluation Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timeline for the publication of the evaluation report of the 56-day move-on period pilot for those granted refugee status.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Home Office commissioned an evaluation of the 56-day move-on period, which has now been completed, following the pilot concluded earlier this year. The final report, by happy coincidence, was published on 10 June and is available to read online.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the coincidental publication today of the evaluation. The conclusion of the report states that the
“extension of the move on period … to 56 days, improved refugee experience and operational planning”.
The first recommendation is to
“extend the move on period and consider an even longer move on period for single adults”.
Can the Minister say whether we can expect the Government to implement this recommendation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government began with a 28-day period when we inherited office in 2024. Following a pilot and an evaluation, we determined that the optimum period is 42 days. We have put in additional support, and we always keep these matters under review. The Government have given 14 extra days to the move-on period compared with the previous Government, and I think that should be welcomed.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, as this is an immigration-related Question, I take the opportunity to say that I am sure the whole House agrees with me in wishing Mr Stephen Ogilvie, the person who suffered the knife attack in Belfast the other day, well in recovery, as he suffered very severe injuries. We also hope that demonstrations, if people wish to have them, are peaceful.
Can the Minister, who has laboured in the vineyard for the past two years on immigration issues, not accept that we have not, as a country, got control of immigration? Even with the reduction in net immigration in the year to March, we still have 16,000 people a week coming into this country. That is not satisfactory. Even if there are 56 days, 42 days or whatever is recommended in the report, which I obviously have not yet read, the numbers are just too much, and we cannot go on ignoring the realities. We see what is happening and the reaction on the ground.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First, the incident in Belfast a couple of nights ago was truly horrific, and an individual has now been charged with offences. It is right that he go before the court and that I do not comment on those issues. It is also important, from the Home Office’s perspective, that we work closely with partners, including the police and local safeguarding bodies, to ensure that public protection remains strong. As the noble Lord will know, Northern Ireland has devolved policing; they will examine this issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is there today.
The noble Lord raises a number of issues about immigration. Asylum claims in Northern Ireland are down 7% year on year. The Government have a very strong White Paper and a forthcoming Bill to look at the potential for managing immigration. We have reduced the number of hotels in use from over 400 in 2024 to around 160 now. We will continue to make sure that our borders are secure. It is best that I let the incident in Belfast be seen and determined in the courts, and in due course we will reflect with the Northern Ireland Executive on any lessons learned.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches. Next will be the Lib Dem Benches and then the Labour Benches.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister will know that contractors acting for the Home Office—Clearsprings and Serco—are bidding for private rented accommodation as asylum seekers move out of hotels. Local authorities are also looking for private rented accommodation as they move families with children in temporary accommodation into the private rented sector. This is resulting in a local bidding war between two publicly funded authorities, driving up the price of private rented accommodation, which is already suffering from the consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act. Should there not be some memorandum of understanding or concordat to prevent what is happening on the ground in local authority areas?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very sound point. We are trying to consult with local authorities and work with them closely. We have put in place some 59 local authority support areas, where we have placed asylum move-on liaison officers to work with the local authorities to look at what the asylum move-on is and what the pressures are locally. That is an innovation, following on from the previous Government—the 59 officers were not there previously. The noble Lord makes a sensible point. We do not want a bidding war but ultimately, we have to provide accommodation, and in a positive and constructive way.
Baroness Teather (LD)
I have seen the evaluation of the pilot that was published today. Has the Minister evaluated the impact of giving asylum seekers the right to work, which might make it more likely that they can resolve their own housing situations once they are granted refugee status?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There has been lot of discussion around the right to work, and we have taken the view that it is not a route we want to go down at the moment. Ultimately, through the whole of this scheme, I want to speed up the asylum process and get people’s decisions made quickly, so that individuals can know whether or not they have a long-term future in the United Kingdom. The right to work should be at the end of that process, not during it. We need to complete the process as quickly as possible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I cautiously welcomed the increase to 42 days, though those on the ground warn that the 56-day period, which was piloted, is needed to ensure that refugees can move on from Home Office support successfully. If the 42-day period is to work, in order to avoid the confusion reported in the evaluation, it is essential that new refugees receive all the necessary documentation to access accommodation and so on before the clock starts ticking on the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister commit to making sure that it happens, please?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is the intention. Throughout this process, we are trying to ensure that asylum claims are dealt with speedily—as quickly as possible. The points my noble friend has mentioned are relevant, and this goes back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier. We have put asylum move-on liaison officers in place in 59 local authorities across the United Kingdom, and they are working alongside Migrant Help to support individuals who will be leaving asylum accommodation, and to ensure a successful transition. It is in the interests of all parties to ensure that people make the transition and move through the housing procedure as soon and as efficiently as possible.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government talk up, of course, the number of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers they have returned, but the Minister knows that the number of enforced returns—those people the Home Office forcibly deports—was only 9,700, a small number in the grand scheme and scale of the problem. Given the significant number of people who are living in Britain illegally, what actions are the Government taking this year to ramp up deportation of those who have no right to be here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord and his Government had jurisdiction over these matters for 14 years. The number of asylum seekers rose; the processing fell; the number of hotels increased; the number of deportations fell; and the number of criminal justice activities increased. So I say to the noble Lord quite clearly: the position now is better than it was when he left office. There are more deportations than before; there are more hotel closures; there are fewer asylum applications, and they are being dealt with more speedily. I will defend that record in front of this House and in front of him on every day of the week.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Reverting to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, if the person granted asylum has only 42 days to navigate housing, employment and the markets, and to get himself a bank account and registered for universal credit, we need to help him by giving him all the documentation he will need from the start. Eighteen months ago, the Minister told us during a debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that digital status existed from the moment asylum was granted. Can it not be communicated at that moment—straight away, day zero —with all the other necessary documentation, including the national insurance number?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look into the points the noble Lord has mentioned. Most e-visas are accessible within minutes of a grant; in a small number of cases, they will take up to three days, as set out on GOV.UK. We hope to ensure that we speed things up, get the proper documentation and allow people that transitional period when the asylum position is determined. We also need to ensure that the 42 days, as has been said generally, provides for a smooth transition to whatever happens next to the individual.
Best Start Family Hubs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that Best Start Family Hubs support families with children aged 5–19 years old and up to 25 years old for those with special educational needs and disabilities.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as co-founder of the not-for-profit Family Hubs Network Ltd.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we are investing over £900 million in the Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies programmes, with an ambition for 1,000 hubs by 2028. New guidance published on 30 March outlines delivery expectations. While there will be a focus on pregnancy and the early years, hubs will welcome all families with older children up to the age of 19, or 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities, providing a universal offer for all.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Family hubs are not Sure Start rebranded. There is a multitude of problems affecting families with older children, yet all that is ever talked about, in my opinion, is the early years. Hubs need to support parents of teenagers to prevent them becoming and staying NEET. Alan Milburn’s report repeatedly highlights, in various paragraphs, why families are not a peripheral influence but central. Josh McAlister’s review found that teenagers are the largest growing cohort in child protection and care. What evidence can the Minister provide of family hubs’ outcomes in supporting parents with teenagers, and which local authorities are doing particularly well?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I recognise the noble Lord’s real commitment in this area and his work over the years. I stress that there are good examples of hubs providing support for families with teenagers, such as in Coventry, where over 400 young people were brought together with 65 partner organisations to facilitate access to services. We are talking about transformation. We are not talking about the older models; we are moving forward. I agree with the noble Lord that evidence of outcomes is important, although that takes time to come through, as the recent IFS report has shown. We are committed to evaluating the programme fully and are procuring for that now.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the family hubs, particularly the support for young people aged five to 19, or up to 25 with special educational needs. One of the issues we always have around these initiatives is the consistency of delivery and what is often referred to as a postcode lottery. Can the Minister assure us that we will get consistency of delivery, so that every young person, no matter where they live in the country, gets the support they need?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. That is why the programme is committed to initially providing a hub within every local authority, expanding over the next two years to 1,000 hubs opening, recognising the diversity of need and that local areas will want to move the programme forward. There is clear guidance and there are clear expectations that every area will report on the outcomes they achieve, making sure that we drive forward the real desire for consistency that the noble Lord outlines.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, when in office, the party opposite oversaw an exponential rise in child poverty. It abolished Sure Start, the most successful programme which improved children’s physical and mental health, boosted their educational attainment and reduced serious youth crime. It imposed a two-child benefit limit, which condemned children to poverty. This Government have abolished the two-child limit and introduced Best Start to build on the Sure Start legacy. Does the Minister agree that this is the right way to reduce child poverty, rather than to ignore it?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am tempted to answer with a simple and straight yes. My noble friend speaks absolute sense on this agenda. I want to highlight the devastation to provision that she outlines: between 2010 and 2022, 1,300 Sure Start centres closed; by 2024, one in three low-income families had no access to children’s centres at all. As she says, poverty soared and school readiness flatlined. I am delighted that this Government are making this one of their top priorities. I look forward to the outcomes and the benefits to families very soon.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the Minister and I both know very well the work of PHAB in Leeds, under the guidance of its wonderful secretary Ann Hart, which has for many years been bringing together able-bodied people with those with disabilities and disadvantages. Will the Minister support me in congratulating Ann and that organisation, which I know she supports as well, on bringing together people who are in good health with those who have disabilities and making them work together for the benefit of both?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am delighted to hear the noble Lord reference Ann and the brilliant work that has been done for many years. The whole principle of Sure Start was the universal approach, bringing together all sorts of people and not focusing on just one sector. Everyone needs support at different stages in their lives and everyone has something to offer. It is the interchange and support that you get through this type of vision that makes a huge difference to people’s lives.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the Best Start Family Hubs offer an opportunity for positive progress. However, if we are to provide the most assistance to families, particularly those with SEND children, it will require an integrated and holistic approach from the Government. Can the Minister outline how family hubs will integrate with the Government’s proposed reforms to SEND and their response to the Milburn report, so that we have an integrated, joined-up approach to support for families?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I probably do not have enough time in my short answer to go into all the initiatives, but I assure noble Lords that every Best Start Family Hub will have a Best Start inclusion practitioner. An enormous amount of resource is going into making sure that the training is there and the links can be made. The fundamental point that the noble Lord makes, which we absolutely endorse, is that there need to be strong local linkages, bringing together all the different services that work with young people and their families, to make sure we get the very best provision at the earliest possible opportunity to improve their outcomes.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the test of the family hubs is not how many open but whether children are connected to the right opportunities. The Department for Education’s own guidance includes a minimum expectation that families whose young people are not in education, employment or training be connected to targeted support to ensure that parents are part of the solution. To what extent is this happening? Will the Government improve reporting to increase accountability?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Improved reporting is a mission for all of us, but most of all it is important to collect the data, as the noble Baroness suggests, and make sure that we use it. Running alongside the family hub model is the Youth Matters programme. Most important in this agenda is making sure that young people have a say and a voice, and that we design services in their local areas that are fit for purpose—and of course the wider family have a role in this. We are facing 1 million young people who are NEET, and I know that the noble Baroness recognises that policy over the last years of the last Government contributed to that. We are determined to work with those young people to make sure they can take advantage of all the opportunities we are creating.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is admirable that the Minister wants to lift children out of poverty. Why then has she not enthusiastically accepted the recommendations of the Public Services Committee about reforming the Child Maintenance Service, which is currently letting hundreds of thousands of fathers get away with paying nothing, hiding their assets and not having their obligations enforced, when they have a legal and moral responsibility to support their children? This has gone on for years. She has the power to move this forward.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking the opportunity to bring one of her passions into this broader debate. We understand the problems, and other departments are picking that up and taking it forward. I would not like to comment further at this stage.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister please explain how the Government will ensure that these brilliant hubs reach and build trust with all women. I am thinking, for example, of women who are the victims of domestic abuse, women who have poor mental health and women who have encountered the criminal justice system. Will she look at how women’s centres might close this gap?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am happy to have a discussion with my noble friend but caution that family hubs will be working with all those who care for children and young people, including fathers. We have to make sure that the environment in those hubs is supportive and picks up on all the issues she has raised. From my own experience of working with Sure Start, I know that one of the most powerful things we saw was women disclosing for the first time to other women within their peer group that they were being subjected to domestic violence—not having to go through any agency or professional but getting support from other women and then being signposted to the support that they needed.
Farming and Food Production
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their top priorities are for farming and food production in this parliamentary session.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities. Our reformed SFI offer will open later this month, and our ELM capital grants offer opens next month. We will continue to work with stakeholders through the new Farming and Food Partnership Board, and we will publish our response to the farming profitability review and our 25-year farming road map later this year. That will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, of course, environmental schemes do not put food on the table. Will she take this opportunity to set out how the Government intend to put the focus back on to food production and farming, particularly to boost the productivity of farms in the uplands and tenanted farms? What specific measures is she intending to take to boost the food security and self-sufficiency so desperately needed at home, and the ability of our farmers to compete internationally away from home?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that true food security cannot exist without climate resilience? Considering the recent severe weather disruptions to UK crop yields, will the Government’s priorities in this parliamentary Session include a legally binding good food Bill to formalise national self-sufficiency targets alongside nature restoration metrics? If not, why not?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that no good food Bill was announced in the King’s Speech this time, and I cannot presume to guess what is going to be in the next King’s Speech. Clearly, resilience to climate change is absolutely critical. From different perspectives, we know that farmers struggle when we have severe flooding and that drought and wildfire risk is also a real problem, so improving resilience for farming to both very dry and very wet weather is an absolute priority for the Government. We have invested a record £2.65 billion in flood defences, for example, and that will include supporting farmers as well. The environmental land management schemes will also allow for grants to look at some of the impacts of climate change.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider extending the SFI payments to cover farmers growing leguminous crops—in other words, beans? This fixes nitrogen in the soil and makes the soil more healthy. They cannot get fertilisers at the moment because of the Strait of Hormuz blockage. Also, this is the way we want our diets to go. At the moment, there is not much money in it for farmers to plant these kinds of crops. This would be a massive step towards both combating climate change and improving health.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Anything that can help us to make our farming sector more secure is welcome, particularly when we have seen the impact of the war in the Middle East on fertiliser, for example. I know that the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, is looking at ways to continue to improve the SFI offer, and I will take the noble Baroness’s suggestions back to her.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the very real contribution to the farming industry of the upland farmers, not least cefn gwlad in the lovely land of Wales, the Pennine farmers and the many uplands in Scotland and the Cheviots, for example? This community secures, in many ways, the environment of much of Britain, and they face many challenges now, not least climate change. I know how important my noble friend the Minister sees the environment to be. Does she acknowledge that this community across Britain does a great deal to help and should be acknowledged and rewarded?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the backbone of food production in rural Wales and in many other areas is small family farms but that one of the banes of their lives is the red tape levels they have to face in undertaking their work? Will the Government please review the red tape pressure that is on such farms in taxation and other matters to lessen this burden and let them get on with what they are best at, which is producing food?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, my mother’s family had a small family farm in Wales. My uncle had to do another job because he could not make sufficient money just from the farm, so I know the tough challenges that hill farms in Wales face. Obviously, it is a devolved matter. I assure the noble Lord that I talked regularly in the past to my colleague and I very much look forward to meeting the new Plaid Cymru Minister. I will continue to work to reduce red tape in whatever way we can for farms.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, bovine TB is one of the most serious challenges facing our cattle farmers in England, so I very much welcome the control strategy announced this morning by the Government, which makes a positive step change in the approach to that control. I have not seen the details yet, but will the Minister confirm that it will enable farmers and vets to use new antibody-based sensitivity tests to indicate which of their animals are infected, no matter what the official TB status is? Will they be able to have easier access to data from Defra and will they have the freedom to manage out infection in their herds? If these changes and others that are mentioned are followed, they should help improve animal health and welfare, reduce the stress on farmers from having to cull their cattle at regular intervals, and provide farmers with some welcome light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks some pertinent questions. I am pleased that earlier today the co-designed Bovine TB Control Strategy for England was published. It has been developed and published through the TB Hub website, which, if noble Lords are interested, I urge them to look at. A steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership has been working on this for some time in order to make sure that we get the next stage of our strategy on tackling bovine TB absolutely right. We are now going to look at the detail of the steering group’s proposals carefully to see where we go next.
The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. My understanding is that we are looking at new tests and implementation on working with vets, but, as he asked quite detailed questions about a strategy that has only just been published—I have not yet seen the detail as yet—I will write to him with that information.
Mindanao Earthquake
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they intend to make available to those affected by the earthquake in Mindanao in the Philippines.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, my work in the Philippines is recorded in the Lords register. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I was deeply saddened to hear about the earthquake in the Philippines on 8 June and I offer my condolences to everyone impacted. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. I praise the strong and rapid response of the Government of the Philippines at a challenging time. Of course, the UK stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance if requested by the Philippines Government. We have a range of mechanisms and capabilities in place to provide that support if called upon.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer on behalf of the Government. The good people of General Santos in South Cotabato, in the Bangsamoro region of the Philippines, have spent the last 12 years rebuilding their economy and their communities after 50 years of civil war. They face these climate shock events on a far too regular basis. Some 32,000 people have been displaced and at least 37 have died. I hope the Government will not only be able to provide humanitarian support for a key partner country in our geopolitical relationships but continue to provide support in the Philippines for action against climate change and in support of peace-building efforts, following the conflict and the civil war that affected that region in particular for so long.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he has done in the Philippines over many years, particularly in the Bangsamoro region. He has been involved for more than a decade, I think, and that has been a remarkable commitment where he has achieved and contributed to real change.
The UK has provided humanitarian assistance in recent years to support the Philippines Government’s response to the major natural disasters that have impacted the country. My noble friend is right to say that these are often climate-related. The Philippines is one of the countries that are most vulnerable to climate-related disasters, and we have been strong supporters of it. We also have a modern development partnership with the Philippines.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, are the Government having discussions about deploying emergency response teams to assist on the ground, such as the excellent Hazardous Area Response Team or UK-Med, which have been trained in providing life-saving assistance in these cases?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I say, we have not as yet been asked to provide support, and we are strong supporters of the response of the Philippines Government. I make that it clear that we are close partners of the Government of the Philippines and we would mobilise the resources that the noble Baroness mentioned if they were felt to be necessary. There is no resistance at all at our end.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I was also involved in a small way in the Bangsamoro project; I have not visited the region, but I have engaged with parliamentarians. This earthquake is a major setback for the region on its recovery. Why is it that in the past, before our aid cuts, when there was a major earthquake or a major disaster, we had an immediate response from an operation in Victoria Street to send out a response within hours, rather than waiting for a call from the Government? Has that capacity been abolished? At the moment, with all our engagement in in the area, do we not need to offer a bit more than the ambassador’s sympathy?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
With respect, I do not think we are just offering the ambassador’s sympathy. We stand ready to help and have ensured that our commitments to humanitarian assistance have been protected, so I am afraid that I do not quite accept the characterisation the noble Lord puts forward. On the Bangsamoro peace process, it is an important commitment that the UK has been heavily involved in, supported by my noble friend Lord McConnell, and we will continue to be actively engaged in that.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the British people can be proud of the part we have played over the years in bringing relative peace to that part of the world. Can the Minister, though, reassure us that we will do everything we can to preserve the peace in that area in case it is knocked a bit by the recent humanitarian problems we have seen resulting from this earthquake?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that we are not receiving any reports—I checked this specifically—of problems with aid from the Philippines Government reaching the affected communities in the Bangsamoro area. We are committed to supporting the peace process in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and will continue to do that even once this disaster is behind us.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister what the closest Royal Navy ship was to the Philippines when this accident happened—because historically the Navy has been very involved in these things—and was its tasking changed at all as a result of this?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I suppose I should have been prepared for that question. My noble friend will also be prepared for me to say I do not know the answer, but I will check. As I have said, if the Government of the Philippines asked for our help, we would provide it, but there is no suggestion that they have asked for help from the Royal Navy at the moment.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the safety and well-being of those living in and around General Santos City is the only thing that matters right now. But, following on from my noble friend Lady Sugg, on a practical level, we have some brilliant UK-based firms with international operations that specialise in structural integrity assessment and crisis communications. Apparently, the wounded are being treated in tents because they are afraid of the hospitals collapsing. Will the FCDO engage with both our experts and the Philippines authorities so we can try to make a real difference? Surely, we do not need to be asked; we should be on the front foot.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Of course we will. We will not just wait to be asked. The Philippines Government, as I have said, have made a strong response and we will respond to requests for help. Of course we prepare, plan and monitor the situation. The noble Lord knows that.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, and the Minister will be aware that the Philippines is currently the president of ASEAN and, indeed, the whole region works very closely with the UK on climate change and green technologies. Could the Minister update the House on the engagement the UK is currently undertaking with the Philippines during its presidency of ASEAN?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I am happy to do that. I am happy to talk and happy to write with more detail, if that will be helpful. On the specific question that the noble Lord asked about climate resilience, agriculture and solar energy, particularly in the blue economy we have a very active programme and have committed up to £20 million to various kinds of technical assistance. My briefers in the FCDO told me that, even if they do not ask for a letter, I should offer to send one, because we have a lot of good things to say—so I will.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is my recollection that we used to be rather speedier in response when we had a separate Department for International Development, which was unfortunately abolished by the Government of the party opposite. Would the Minister, however tentatively, give some indication that, when circumstances permit, we will consider reinstating a separate Department for International Development?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am afraid that I do not feel empowered to propose machinery of government changes, tentatively or otherwise. It is important to us that our international development effort, particularly—and the whole House knows this—in tough fiscal circumstances, comes together with our diplomatic and defence efforts in a co-ordinated way. Of course, the Government will consider the right machinery of government to achieve that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
May I try and come to the aid of the Minister? When I was a Defence Minister and visited the Philippines, I was the first Defence Minister to go there for 40 years, and it was my pleasure to board HMS “Tamar”. “Tamar” and HMS “Spey” are two offshore protection vessels retained out in that region to provide humanitarian and general help, if required. Is the Minister aware of, or will he consult with the MoD on, whether these two ships are in a position to offer any form of support?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I will be happy to do that. The noble Baroness may have been the first Defence Minister to visit the Philippines, but she was not the last. My noble friend Lord Coaker was there very recently, talking to the Government of the Philippines about increased defence co-operation, and I will be happy to come back to the noble Baroness on the specific question about the ships. It is a strengthening relationship, but I will not steal my noble friend’s thunder.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Effingham, it is not just a question of residents not wanting to go to hospitals because of fear of them collapsing. Many hospitals have been badly damaged, so people are being treated, as my noble friend said, in makeshift facilities. Can I push the Minister a bit further? We have a lot of expertise in this area, so what specific medical aid are HMG looking at and thinking of?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am very happy to look specifically at what is being prepared, as it follows up on the question of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. I reiterate, and I do want to emphasise, that there is no resistance on the part of His Majesty’s Government to supporting the Government of the Philippines in disaster relief on this disaster, and no doubt on ones in the future. I really want to stress that.
Concealed Surveillance Equipment in Government Offices and Vehicles
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the reported discoveries of concealed surveillance equipment in Government offices and vehicles, what assessment they have made of the implications of this for (1) national security, and (2) public policy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
In line with the practice of successive Administrations, this Government do not comment on the detail of internal security matters, but I can confirm that an electronic device was found in a communal area of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government during a routine security check. The device was not in or near ministerial offices, and it is currently being investigated by the appropriate agencies. The Government have also looked into the Daily Mail report and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. This is based on inquiries made at the time, and more recently.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and to the Minister for that reply.
That disclosure was made yesterday to a Select Committee in another place—that a Chinese cellular module was discovered in the then Prime Minister’s car—and on the previous day, there was a report of secret cameras being discovered in government offices. Surely that raises serious questions about the security of government departments, and the systematic use of both surveillance and indeed transnational repression by hostile states, including those states described by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as being part of a “deadly quartet” of our country’s enemies.
Is it true that the location of the cameras was where consideration of the proposed embassy of the People’s Republic of China was taking place? Will the Minister make an assessment of whether there has been undue influence as a result? When will the Government give effect to the unanimous call from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, that the People’s Republic of China should be listed with Russia and Iran in the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the latter point, the Government keep all matters, such as registration under the FIRS, under review at all times. Again, it is not appropriate to comment on any consideration of that at this time. I also say to the noble Lord that it is not appropriate for me to comment on what is a live investigation into the circumstances that I have already admitted have happened in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I strongly caution against any speculation at this time, because the Government will need to investigate that matter in due course.
On the Chinese embassy decision, I say to the noble Lord that intelligence agencies were involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures were developed to manage any risks. The planning decision was taken independently by the MHCLG Secretary of State and his conclusion is the result of a process that began in 2018. If I may, I return to my initial comments: the Government cannot comment on the detail of internal security matters, but those are being investigated by the appropriate agencies. I think it is best that we leave it at that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies for jumping the gun in my enthusiasm, perhaps the Government could comment on this. It is bad enough, although perhaps all too predictable, that there is illicit surveillance by way of, for example, hidden cameras. But what about when public money is actively used to procure cameras that originate, for example, in the People’s Republic of China? I know that the previous Government banned the new installation of Hikvision cameras in sensitive government buildings. Have they all been dismantled? What about banning them from the public estate more generally?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is pressing me to comment on these matters. I cannot comment on security issues—nor would the House, I suspect, wish me to do so—except to say that the Government will ensure that all matters in government activity are secure. The Government take every step they possibly can to make sure that the types of incidents my noble friend refers to do not happen and are prevented.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that this is a highly disturbing and troubling discovery, which demonstrates the severity of the espionage threat that we face today. To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, given that the camera was found in the offices where Ministers approved the application for the new Chinese mega-embassy, it seems highly likely that China or a person linked to China is behind this. Surely this has to serve as a wake-up call for the Government, so how can they still go ahead with allowing China to build a massive spy hub in the middle of London after this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I would caution the noble Lord about jumping to conclusions as to who, what, where or when was behind the device that was found. I genuinely caution him on that but, with regard to the Chinese embassy, I can say that the planning decision was taken independently; the intelligence services have been involved throughout; there have been extensive negotiations; and the Chinese Government themselves have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one, which brings clear security advantages for the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has made interesting points and we will examine, and determine, the facts in due course.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the Minister and the Government have emphasised, understandably, that the camera was not in a location used by Ministers. However, with due respect to Ministers, civil servants can be pretty important as well. Is the Minister able to give us any information about exactly where the camera was located and who uses that area? Can he reassure us that just because the camera was not in a place that Ministers use, that is no reason to downplay the importance of this issue or of an appropriate response by the Government in due course?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. They have and will investigate what has happened. I hope he can understand that I do not wish to comment on where and how the information came to light. But I have confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that the facts of the case as reported are correct. It would be best for us to investigate this through the appropriate agencies and, in due course, come to conclusions in government to understand what has happened and how.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister give some indication of when Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is likely to commence? I understand that the Government are keeping it under review. This is the section that requires English universities to include in their annual reports to the Office for Students the funding they receive from foreign states. This is so that the OfS can monitor whether those foreign states are trying to interfere in freedom of speech or academic freedom on those university campuses.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow me, I will write to him on that point—for the simple reason that universities fall within a different department from the one that I have responsibility for. But I will examine that and report back to him as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that my noble friend the Minister will probably repeat an answer that he has already given about five times; in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Precisely where within the department this camera was found makes a world of difference. The Minister used a very careful form of words: he talked about common areas, and an area that was not close to Ministers’ offices. By “common areas”, did he mean those in which the public or visitors were quite frequently present, or does “common areas” mean that it was concealed within a toilet area? If it was a toilet area, I suspect we would be having a very different conversation as that would imply that it may be an internal matter with an internal member of staff, rather than anything else. Without prejudicing any of the other things my noble friend has said, is he able to enlighten us?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In short, no. I am trying to be helpful, as is my nature, but there are certain things I cannot be helpful with. One of them is anything that may give further information about or prejudice investigations into the important matter of the location of any device found. As I have said to the House, it was not in or near a ministerial office, but we are investigating and there will be an examination of what happened. I would hesitate to speculate as to who, what, where, why or when until such time as the investigation has occurred.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is always helpful in the replies that he gives to the House, but I press him further on the second limb of the question I put to him about the discovery of cellular modules in a former Prime Minister’s car. This was not something just reported in a newspaper, as he said to the House. This was mentioned yesterday at the Business Select Committee in another place by Mr Charles Parton, who served as one of our senior diplomats and is one of this country’s leading experts on China—and also on cellular modules. At a meeting that I chaired last night in your Lordships’ House, Mr Charles Parton said it again. Will the Minister at least look at the record of the Select Committee, and undertake to have a conversation with Mr Parton?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will repeat my answer in the interests of clarity for the noble Lord. We have looked into the reports and previous coverage and have not discovered any evidence of a tracking device being placed in Prime Ministers’ cars. That is based on inquiries made at the time and again more recently. I cannot be clearer than that. An investigation has taken place and no evidence has been provided. I saw the individual make these allegations on television last night, but I can only repeat my understanding of the security services’ follow-up of those investigations. What I have said to the House today is my current understanding of the position.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
The Minister said that the camera was found in a routine inspection. Have the Government instigated more frequent inspections as a result of this discovery?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, with due respect to this Chamber, this Chamber is not the place for me to outline how often, when, where and how the Government undertake security checks on buildings or vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord, who I know takes an interest in these matters, will understand that it is the Government’s first priority to keep our workings internally secure, and it is important that we do that. I assure him that that is what the Government are doing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
To return to an element of the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does the Minister agree with the director-general of MI5 that China is seeking to influence our political system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
China influences our political system in many ways, and the Government will not tolerate any foreign interference from any state actor targeting the UK. We have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the UK. We have to do business with China still and recognise China, and we have to work with China on a number of areas of common interest—but, self-evidently, there are a number of significant threats that China poses. We keep those under review and, in all our dealings with the nation of China, we bear those aspects of work in mind.
Lord Farmer (Con)
Have parliamentary Members’ offices been checked for any of these devices, in the other place and in this place? I imagine that foreign powers could be quite interested in the conversations going on in the offices of certain Members of Parliament. Is there is a usual check of our offices?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an interesting and potentially helpful question. I do not have jurisdiction over this building, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons—that is a matter for the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, and the chief officers of both Houses. I think that they will have heard that response, and it may be possible for me to facilitate a reply on that to the noble Lord via those officers, but it is not a matter for me.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL]
Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL]
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
North Belfast: Violent Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, the barbaric attack in north Belfast on Monday evening was truly sickening and our thoughts are with the victim. Will the Minister join me in commending the bravery of the public who intervened and the swift response of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that nothing justifies the violence we saw overnight? We are all angry. The right response, however, is not uncontrolled rage but to allow the law to take its proper course. In early 2024, the Irish Government were quick to raise concerns over migrants entering their jurisdiction through Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us what conversations are taking place to prevent migrants coming into Ireland from other safe EU countries that are in the Schengen area and then exploiting the common travel area to claim asylum here in the United Kingdom?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments with regard to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think that anyone who has watched the news in the last 36 hours can only be in awe of and very grateful to the chief constable, Jon Boutcher, and the brave men and women who are serving in all our emergency services, but especially the PSNI. I put on record the thanks of the whole House to those extraordinarily brave bystanders who chose not to look the other way but intervened very bravely to save a member of their community.
With regard to the specific question that the noble Lord raises on common travel area, he will be as aware as I am that the common travel area has been in operation for a century and is regularly a matter of conversation for both the British and Irish Governments; that continues to be the case and has been so this week. I think it is helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House to know that, in the last 12 months, 1,500 enforcement operations took place in relation to illegal immigration in Northern Ireland, with more than 1,200 arrests. This is something that this Government take very seriously.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too deeply deplore Monday’s violent attack and condemn in the strongest possible terms those who seek to weaponise pain and suffering. In particular, I condemn those inciting violence from abroad, including Tommy Robinson from Moscow yesterday evening. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the bystanders and emergency services, whose bravery was truly outstanding. Does the Minister agree that the priority must be to help the community recover from this appalling violence, and will she say what the Government are doing to support the people of Belfast and bring communities back together through the difficult weeks ahead?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the tone that she has taken. I agree with every word that she said, not least about the appalling comments of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—someone who I, in a previous incarnation, campaigned against for decades. For all of us, Stephen Ogilvie should be in our prayers, and we hope and wish for him to have as speedy a recovery as possible. In terms of working with the community, after the disorder in Ballymena last year, I went there and met the community leaders, the extraordinary women who stood in between those violent perpetrators and the community, and I am very grateful for them. It will take months for the community to heal from what is happening. I reiterate what the leader of the DUP has said in recent hours: protests and politics are British values; that is the way we engage; violence is not.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, scenes of appalling violence that we have seen in Belfast and in north Belfast, which I used to have the honour to represent in the other place, have been rightly condemned by everybody. Such violence serves absolutely no purpose except to hurt communities and innocent people and should not be happening. Can the Minister, in relation to the horrific event on Monday night that sparked all this, give an assurance that there will be speedy justice for the victim, as we have seen in other cases, and that there will be no undue delay?
In terms of protecting and defending the people of Northern Ireland—and the open border has been mentioned—will she urgently review the operation of the common travel area and talk to the Irish authorities about what they are doing? Will she look at the draw factors which enable people to go through two, three or four safe countries before they claim asylum in the UK? Will she also look at a particular problem we have in Northern Ireland which has been subject to proposed legislation, so far unsuccessfully: outlawing the glorification of violence? This is happening at the very top of the Northern Ireland Government and is done by the First Minister, and it is encouraging young people to say, “Well, if it was okay for them; it is okay for us”. This culture of resorting to violence on the streets must end.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for both his service in this House and his decades of service in Northern Ireland. What we have seen reminds all of us quite how challenging it has always been to be a representative in Northern Ireland, and we are so grateful for the work that he has done.
It is important that we call for calm in Northern Ireland and across the country in the coming hours and days. I am pleased to see that has been the case across the political spectrum. In terms of the glorification of terrorism, there is no excuse for glorifying a proscribed organisation. It is illegal, as it should be.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I totally condemn the brutal and barbaric attack on Stephen Ogilvie, and I wish him a full and speedy recovery. I commend the first responders, the PSNI, and members of the community who apprehended the assailant. We then witnessed in the aftermath the uncontrollable violence that spilled on to the streets of Belfast. Does my noble friend agree that such violence seemed to concentrate, like a pogrom, on people of colour, and that it is important to adhere to the principle of diversity, which is the very essence of humanity?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
What we saw overnight is violence and disorder of the most shocking kind, using one of the most horrendous attempted murders, which we all unfortunately saw because it was spread across social media. We need to remember and contextualise what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what it led to. Some 27 people were made homeless last night because people went door to door to target foreign nationals and burn them out of their homes. I can only imagine their terror. The youngest victim to be moved from her home was two years old. I do not think any of us will ever be able to forget the image of a nine year-old child and their family being put in the back of a Land Rover as they were rescued from violent, racist thugs who sought to undermine their sense of belonging in a country that many have lived in for decades. It is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, these people, the original perpetrator and those who have acted with such dishonour over the last 24 hours, will face the full strength of the law.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, like everyone here, I offer my sincere sympathy to Mr Ogilvie and welcome the support for those who came to his aid, as well as the local people, the security services, police and ambulance service.
Like everyone, I totally condemn the violence of last night. Those who are living properly in that part of the United Kingdom have a right to live there. However, will the Minister give us some idea as to how she and the Government are going to stop the great number of illegal immigrants coming in their boatloads into the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Nearly 70,000 people were deported between the general election and March 2026—a 41% increase on the 21 months before that. It is important for us to remember that we are a welcoming, open country; I am here only because of previous immigration policies that allowed my family to come. However, this is about making sure that, if you are lucky enough to live in the UK, you abide by British values, and if you do not, you will leave.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, people are conflating those who come here illegally with those who are here legally. Among the people who were firebombed out of their homes last night was an African family who have been here for 20 years. We also saw pictures of a business, potentially started by an Indian family, that had been firebombed. There is no excuse for those people who are inciting hatred and racism. Just as South Yorkshire Police took action when the Holiday Inn in Rotherham was attacked, I really hope the Northern Ireland police service has the same vigour to take action against those who put life in danger over the last couple of days.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We have seen people who have been too scared to go to work in the last 24 hours—people who serve in our NHS and in lots of different public services, as well as those who have built lives here, and we are grateful to them for doing so.
I would like to finish my contributions today not with my words but with the words of the Ogilvie family, because they reflect where most of us would want to be.
“We want to make it absolutely clear that overnight unrest is not welcome, and peaceful protest is the only way forward. We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility”.
Middle East
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this important Statement.
The situation in the Middle East continues to cause global instability, and families here in the UK are feeling the impact at the petrol pump and in the shops. We all have an interest in securing stability in the region, and we should all hope that ceasefires eventually lead to lasting peace.
In recent days, we have seen a significant increase in tensions following the Iranian regime’s use of ballistic missiles in an attack on Israel. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her confirmation that Israel has the right to defend itself. When Israel faces terrorist attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, when the Iranian regime fires ballistic missiles at Israel, we must all, in my view, be united on Israel’s right to self-defence.
We must all recognise that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, both internationally and, sadly, here in the UK. This House voted three times in the last Session to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and Ministers now tell us that this is something the Government are committed to and that it will happen as soon as Ministers can. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s planned timescale for proscription?
Iran also continues to obstruct shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and the regime has murdered its own citizens in droves and refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to reassure the House that urgent work is ongoing with our US and EU partners to secure the safe passage of shipping through the strait, and can he say what work is being done to ensure that Iran eventually ends its nuclear programme? Noble Lords across the House, including on the Government Benches, will agree with us when we say that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.
Turning to Gaza and the West Bank, my right honourable friend Dame Priti Patel was right when she said in the other place:
“We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the West Bank and in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/26; col. 164.]
There remain concerns about the delivery of aid which urgently need to be resolved, and we support all efforts to secure peace.
In that context, we know that Hamas must be disarmed and it must have no role in the future Government of Gaza or in the West Bank. Concerningly, however, Hamas is still a threat, and it is still powerful in Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the House a sense of the Government’s reaction to the news yesterday that the United States Agency for International Development has referred 101 current or former UNRWA staff members to the US State Department over their affiliation with Hamas, and in some cases, their involvement in the 7 October attacks themselves.
We believe that it would of course be preferable for the Lebanese Government to disarm Hezbollah. The questions my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked in the other place about the support the Government are giving to Lebanon went unanswered. Can the Minister say whether the Government have plans to go beyond the support we are already giving to the Lebanese armed forces, and to help them contribute to the disarmament and disbandment of Hezbollah?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given that we had the opportunity yesterday to discuss Lebanon, I will focus today on Iran, Palestine and Sudan. I agree with the noble Lord that we are feeling the impact of the US-Iranian war here in the UK. Some 102 days ago, we were called on by the Conservative Opposition to be “all in” with the Trump Administration on the Iran war. I warned that that would be a mistake, as the case had not been made and there was no clear means by which it would be ended. Now, we have ceasefires in which the firing has not ceased. There is no end to the war, and civilians are still paying the price.
The convulsion in the global trade and energy markets continues and there seems to be no immediate or medium-term respite for the communities affected by it, especially those with humanitarian needs. Yesterday I was at a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan, where we were told in very clear terms that ships with food supplies—vital nutritional supplies—for Afghan children had been held up because they were waiting to exit the Strait of Hormuz. Both the United States and Iran have not offered any respite to allow humanitarian relief through the Strait of Hormuz, so I would be grateful if the Minister made strong representations that there are humanitarian consequences to the closure of the strait.
President Trump seems to have crippled the civilian economy in Iran, actively harming the very people he said the US was on its way to help, and, at the same time, has given the homicidal regime in Tehran astonishing strategic advantage. Its proxies have noticed, and it is why people are still under the thumb of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists after all this violence. Yesterday we heard from some in this House that there needs to be more violence to solve the situation, but as the former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid has said, “For the thousandth time”, violence without diplomacy is not sustainable, and I agree with him.
On the ongoing situation and tragedy in Gaza and Palestine, can the Minister confirm our Government’s assessment of the actions of the Board of Peace and any of the technical elements within it? We read reports that the Board of Peace currently has zero authorised funds available to it. Is that the Government’s assessment? Given the stasis and confusion of the Trump Administration regarding their intent for the Board of Peace, I remind the House that the Conservative Opposition said that we should be part of that too.
What is the current means by which humanitarian assistance is being provided within Gaza? I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s Statement: there is a considerable lack of action to deliver sufficient levels of humanitarian aid—it is not even anywhere close to where the 20-point plan said it would be. What is the Government’s assessment of the scale of the assistance being provided?
On the continuing violence in the West Bank, it is regrettable that there is still too high a level of impunity for those perpetuating violence there. I agree with the putting in place of additional sanctions, but there is too much impunity for not only settlers but those in the outposts. The outposts are prohibited under Israeli law, and there is lack of policing of the activity there. Will the Government ensure that anyone facilitating those who are sanctioned, either through financial or political support, will be brought within the sanctions regime and that that will apply to people in this country too?
Finally, there is far too little scrutiny of the Sudan conflict in this House, this Parliament and the UK, but it is incredibly linked with what is happening in the Middle East. Does the Minister agree with two of the key principles in the 12 September statement released last year by the Quad countries that Sudan’s future governance should be through an inclusive and transparent process, where civilians lead and are not controlled by any warring party, including those of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Sudan, as well as other civilians across the region, can have more sustainable peace?
We all need to focus our minds on community cohesion now, and this links with the Urgent Question which we have just heard. There have been repugnant Islamophobic statements from the far right and repulsive antisemitic statements and actions from groups including the far left in this country. I reiterate my call for high-level, cross-party talks to lead to a consensus that antisemitism has no place on the streets of our country and is not British and that no single person in this country should be held to account for the actions of foreign Governments. It is not in the spirit of our country and it is repulsive.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement made by my right honourable friend. I will try to deal with some of the questions that they raised; if I am not able to, I will follow up in writing.
Let me start with Iran. We are obviously concerned by the recent escalation and rise in tension. We absolutely encourage the US and Iran to continue with talks and to focus on de-escalation. I think that everyone in the House would agree with that.
I note the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about humanitarian aid not getting through the Strait of Hormuz. I am concerned about that and I promise to look into it further. The Strait of Hormuz must be reopened for trade, and indeed for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UK is working with the French on the multinational military mission to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but we cannot do that—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about this—until there is a sustainable ceasefire and we know exactly what is required. We are at the forefront of bringing together international co-operation to ensure that, once there is a ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, it stays open, with our support.
The noble Lord asked about proscription and so on. We are following the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. The noble Lord will know that the National Security (State Threats) Bill has been introduced in the other place. We are determined to address state threats from proxies; it is absolutely essential for our national security and the safety of our communities. This House will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill very soon with my noble friend Lord Hanson. We hope, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, that it will be brought to the statute books shortly. It will give the Government powers similar to terrorism powers to act against state threats from proxies. We take that very seriously indeed.
The Government entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. We do not think that this war is the way to deliver that outcome, but we will continue to work with our allies and partners to focus on that. We do not want to see proliferation under any circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing support for the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces. I am happy to do that. We will look specifically at what more help we can give them. I do not have time to talk at great length about Lebanon, but the situation in Lebanon is terrible. I answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not so long ago about this. We regard Israeli strikes as reckless and disproportionate. The Lebanese Government are the legitimate authority in Lebanon and we will continue to support them and their armed forces. Hezbollah attacks on Israel must stop and Hezbollah must demilitarise. We are committed to that.
Turning now to Gaza, words almost fail me, frankly, to describe how extreme and serious the humanitarian crisis is there, and words rarely fail me. There are 1.9 million people displaced; there is a water and sanitation crisis; there is a public health crisis; there are families without shelter; and there are children without food. I know noble Lords know these things, but it is really important for us to understand what is going on. I do not have time to go through a long list of what is needed, but it is essential that food, medicine and fuel get through to Gaza as soon as possible. The problem is not that aid is not available—we have food rotting in warehouses. The problem is not that funding is not available. The problem is access. These crossings must reopen, they must stay open and the aid must get through.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about UNRWA. As the noble Lord knows, there have been a lot of concerns about UNRWA, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has raised them with me in the past. UNRWA now has Christian Saunders in charge and it has a reform programme, which we want to see taken forward. The reality—I am sorry, as I know this is a difficult dilemma—is that UNRWA is providing life-saving basic services on the ground. In order to get those services delivered, we have to continue to work with UNRWA.
On Palestinian governance, Hamas decommissioning has not started, and we want to see that happen as soon as possible. I am happy to say more about the support that we are giving to the Palestinian Authority following our historic recognition of the Palestine state and the two-state solution, but Hamas decommissioning is essential for making progress with Palestinian recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about sanctions in relation to settlements on the West Bank. We have just announced a fourth round of sanctions, as my right honourable friend said in the other place. Our sanctions regime on West Bank settlers is stronger than that of any other country. He knows I am not going to give a running commentary on future sanctions, but we will use our sanction powers. As he knows, we have used them extensively in relation to the West Bank, including on members of the Israeli Cabinet in a personal capacity.
I want to say one other important thing which has been mentioned about the West Bank: the Government do not want to see UK companies involved in work in the West Bank. My right honourable friend has tightened the guidance and we shall keep that under review. We do not, under any circumstances, want UK companies involved in settlement building in the West Bank. The Prime Minister issued a joint statement on 22 May, specifically on E1, saying that we do not want UK companies involved in that. Further, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about charities that purport to support West Bank settlers and, in relation to my earlier comments, those that are involved with the Iranian regime. We want to see the Charity Commission doing more in relation to those purported charities, and we are working with it on that.
I am happy to repeat what my noble friend Lady Chapman said in relation to Israel’s right to self-defence—of course we understand and support that. We have not forgotten what happened on 7 October, and we have made it clear that attacks on Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or any proxies should stop. We are friends and allies of Israel and we will continue to be so. We do not support movements for disinvestment and all the rest of it.
We are concerned about antisemitism, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned. We have provided £80 million to the Community Security Trust, but I am not complacent, and I do not think anyone in the Government or your Lordships’ House is complacent, about this. We have to do more. We have to bring different bits of the Government together to work more closely on antisemitism. We are not where we want to be. That is partly to do with what is going on in the international arena, but we must address these issues domestically as well. In that context, I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about community cohesion.
On Sudan—very briefly, because I am now nearly out of time—we indeed endorse the Quad process and, as the noble Lord knows, we are part of that process and want to see the kind of government that he recommended and talked about.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if I may, it is completely naive of the Government to expect the Lebanese Government and armed forces to deal with Hezbollah. They are completely incapable of doing that and have been for years. The only people capable of dealing with Hezbollah are the IDF. If Israel does have the right to defend itself, and if we want to see peace, we should be supporting the Israelis in dealing with Hezbollah.
On this question of antisemitism, singling out Israel and holding it to standards not applied to other countries are clear examples of antisemitism under the official IHRA definition. This is already the second debate this week on Israel. Over the last few years, Parliament has discussed Israel more than any other issue—not just more than any international issue but more than any domestic issue, including the economy, unemployment, crime or the NHS. The public out there look at Parliament and think this is utterly mad. Do the Government and Parliament not understand that singling out the world’s only Jewish state, holding it to standards not applied to anywhere else, and falsely accusing Israel of committing these terrible crimes is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community? This is why I believe Parliament is playing a large role in driving the explosion of antisemitism that we have seen on the streets of Britain.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can answer the question first. The noble Lord raised two issues in relation to Hezbollah; let me try to deal with those. We have made our position clear on Hezbollah. He takes the view that the only people who can deal with Hezbollah are Israel, but we do need to see progress on its actions in Lebanon and we will continue to support the Lebanese Government. We think that is the right thing to do. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not agree with that, but we do think it is the right thing to do.
With regard to Israel, I hope—I was going to say my noble friend, and I think he is my noble friend in some ways—my noble friend Lord Austin would not include me or any of my remarks in what he said about Parliament and Israel, and I do not entirely concur, frankly. I do think, though—and, to this extent, I agree with him very strongly—that we should watch our language and mind our words. People do watch out for and listen to what we say, both here and in the other place, and I would not want to endorse the view that Israel should be held to higher standards than other countries. But it is a very concerning situation and, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we are supporters of Israel.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register on the Middle East and conflict resolution. Perhaps I could push the Minister further on the issue of Lebanon raised by my noble friend Lord Callanan. The United Kingdom, as he rightly acknowledged, has a long-standing support for Lebanon and the Lebanese armed forces. During the last visit I made with the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron, to Lebanon, President Aoun—who was then General Aoun of the Lebanese armed forces—requested uniforms and training. These things are required now; they should not be requiring consideration. I press the Minister: what specific support are we giving in support of Resolution 1701 of the UN Security Council, with Britain playing its part and exercising its levers? I am also a bit concerned by the fact that there has been no high-level engagement—visits to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territories— since 2024. We must engage with the Government of Israel to ensure that we see long-term peace and stability in the region. At the moment, I cannot see that happening.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his experience and track record in this area. On the question of the practical help that we should be offering to Lebanon and the Lebanese army, I am very happy to accept his challenge. If there are practical things we can do, we should be doing them. That is absolutely right. I will take that back to the department and find out exactly what the situation is. That does not seem to me at all inconsistent with where the Government stand on this.
On the question of discussions with Israel, the noble Lord will know that in the current situation these things are extremely difficult. But we will keep talking to all the parties involved. We have a significant role in the various groups that have been set up around all these conflicts and we will continue to be part of that, including talking to Israel.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that no minority has contributed more positively to this country, in the past and now, than the Jewish community in our midst?
The Statement is one that I generally recognise and applaud, and it appears to have all-party support. But are we not in danger of ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is so intertwined within the communities in Lebanon that it is very difficult indeed to expect the Lebanese Government to launch a campaign against it? Should we not also recognise that there is no real prospect of Hamas decommissioning its weapons? That would be the end of Hamas. It is also unrealistic to expect the Israeli Cabinet, as currently constituted, to exert any real pressure on settler violence. These assumptions are all somewhat unrealistic.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Let me try to deal with some of the points my noble friend has raised. Frankly, I would not want to single out a particular community as having made a greater contribution to this country than any other. But I absolutely recognise the contribution the Jewish community has made to this nation’s life, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances for that community. I stand absolutely four-square behind my own admiration for the Jewish community in Britain.
On Hezbollah and demilitarising, let me be absolutely clear. The Government do not think Hezbollah has any place in the future of Lebanon. That is our view. On decommissioning Hamas, our view is that we want to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian governance. That is why we have taken the steps we have to support the Palestinian Authority. We have given it £10 million this year. We want to deliver some basic services. We are funding 5,300 health professionals in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber—Michael Barber—is working there too.
The thing I really want to stress, in relation to what my noble friend Lord Anderson said, is the importance of civil society. When I travel in that region, many people in Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, and so on, do not share the views of their Governments and the various actors in the areas. Tomorrow, I am happy to say, the Foreign Secretary, along with Canada and Australia, will launch a peacebuilding fund that seeks to work specifically with civil society in Israeli and Palestinian communities. I greatly welcome that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the £10 million extra funding that will go to the Palestinian Authority. Can he explain why this Government are making that payment without first requiring the Palestinian Authority to comply with the demands of this country, the EU and the United States to address governance concerns so as to remove not just inefficiency but corruption, and why we are paying that money when the Palestinian Authority refuses to abandon its outrageous policy of paying the families of convicted murderers?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Government do not support the prisoner payments, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, and we have addressed that issue directly with the Palestinian Authority, so we hope that that is not going to continue. On the wider point, though, I sense that what the noble Lord is really asking me is whether we should require more of the Palestinian Authority before we part with large sums of money, and so on. To be direct about that, my answer is that we are committed to the two-state solution. The Palestinian Authority needs our support. Without that, there is no prospect for the two-state solution, including change in the approach to settlements on the West Bank. I know it is not comfortable; I am not pretending it is. I am not suggesting that this is all straightforward, and he knows I am not, but we feel that we should get behind the Palestinian Authority, within reasonable bounds.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to these questions. I will focus on Lebanon. There is talk about how the Lebanese army and the Lebanese Government should do this and do that, but can the Minister tell us how the Governments of the UK have reduced aid to Lebanon? It is all right talking about what they should do, but the Lebanese army has had its aid reduced. The problem with Lebanon in a nutshell is that Hezbollah is very active in the south of Lebanon and the north of Israel, and no one is talking about the Israeli villages and kibbutzim in northern Israel, which are evacuated and under attack. What Israel is doing, rightly or wrongly, is defending the people of northern Israel. What is needed is that Hezbollah should do what was agreed originally: it should stay on the Beirut side of the Litani River. If it stayed on the Beirut side of the Litani River, there would be less contact and less reason for Israel to attack. Can the Minister please help us by telling us how we can resolve this?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
On the question about Hezbollah, I think I have made the Government’s view clear. On the question about our support for Lebanon, we have provided, as I think the noble Lord knows, a great deal of financial assistance over many years to the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese army, and we are still committed to supporting them. He knows, as we all know, what the pressures are in terms of development aid and the decisions the Government have taken; but I do not think it would be fair to say that the Government have not supported the Lebanese Government. On the question about northern Israel, of course we want to see territorial integrity in those communities, and we understand the pressures they are under, but we want to see territorial integrity in the whole neighbourhood.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the Government said that the two-state solution was still the only way forward, and that is certainly my belief. Does the Minister not concede that, if the building in the E1 area—3,000 new houses—goes ahead, that will build out, in effect, any chance of a two-state solution ever? Given that, I think, that is a fact, does he not think that yesterday, in the Statement, the Foreign Secretary could have gone a bit further, and rather than advising British companies and British citizens not to take part in the construction or the purchase of any property in the illegal E1 area, that should have been made illegal?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not want to take a doom-laden view on this, but the Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries have made very clear what the consequences of E1 going ahead will be. That is why we are against it, and that is why we have set our position out clearly. I would not want to go quite as far as the noble Lord does in saying that it ruins all hope of the two-state solution, but it is very serious. On the other point he made—this point was made extensively in the other place—about why we do not ban this altogether, the Government’s view, and I want to be completely straightforward about this, is that there is legitimate trade with Israel and legitimate activities with Israel and civil society and we do not want to compromise them. If this advice is insufficient, if I can put it like that, we will review it and keep it under review. We are completely clear, as I have already said, and I am very happy to reinforce it, that we do not want British companies involved in E1 or any of the other settlements on the West Bank, and we will do what is necessary.
I shall come back very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have the official answer to his question on prisoner payments, so I had better read it out for the record to prevent myself getting into trouble. We welcome the important commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to reform prisoner payments so that welfare payments are needs-based and delinked from violent actions. I hope I have made that clear, and I will not have to correct myself.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, at the start of the American operation against Iran, His Majesty’s Government refused the use of some bases, including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. Since then, permission has been granted to the Americans. Does that permission still stand, and will it stand until operations against Iran are complete?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is not our war and that we will permit the use of our bases for defensive reasons only. That remains the position of the Government, and it has not changed.
Lord Polak (Con)
Let me help the Minister. In a previous answer, he said that it is difficult to go to Israel. El Al flies twice a day from Heathrow, and I am sure any Government Minister who wishes to can go to Israel. In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the Minister for the Middle East was due to go to a meeting, I think today, with the Charity Commission’s chief executive specifically to discuss UK charities having links in disputed areas. Will the Minister explain whether the said Minister raised the issue of charities in the UK supporting the IRGC, the Muslim Brotherhood or Palestinian rejectionists or—dare I say it—is it just Jewish charities that are concerning the Government?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am sure I did not mean to say that it is difficult to go to Israel, but even if I did say it, I am grateful for the helpful advice on that. I think the noble Lord knows what I meant, which is that this is a complex dynamic and who we talk to when is not straightforward. On the Charity Commission, the meeting took place this morning. I can confirm that it was not confined to charities that support West Bank settlements. I am very happy to ask the department to write to the noble Lord about the others, but I know it involved some of the places, charities and activities that he is talking about. I was not there, obviously.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the pointless recognition of Palestine, which ran counter to international law, has made no difference at all. I note that in the Statement it is taken for granted that east Jerusalem will be part of Palestine. I remind the Government that when Arabs were in control of east Jerusalem—indeed, the whole of Jerusalem—between 1948 and 1967, they wrecked it. There was no Jewish access to holy places. They were deliberately desecrated. The thought of that happening again is really too dreadful. It is about time that the Government came to terms with the possibility of a two-state solution. If 2 million Arabs can live in Israel peacefully, why cannot some Israeli settlers, as they are called, live in Palestine, if it is ever created, without any trouble?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Government’s view, as I think the noble Baroness knows, is that we support the two- state solution. That is why we recognise Palestine. I know she is a long-standing critic of that position and I understand her scepticism, but that is the Government’s view, and we want to try to make that work. On Jerusalem, that is the most important city for many people of many faiths around the world, and of course we shall want to see it protected.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
We want to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we have just had a Conservative contributor. We will now listen to the Lib Democrats.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, there have been plenty of Conservative contributions. I want to press the Minister. He said the Government would regularly review potential action against those involved in illegal settlement activities. Will they commit to reviewing that on a monthly basis, as asked by my colleague Calum Miller in the other place?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not think I quite have the authority to give that commitment on behalf of the Government today. As the noble Lord knows, and as I said in my opening response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I am not going to give a running commentary on future arrangements about sanctions. That is not the Government’s view. However, as I have said, we are at the forefront in relation to West Bank settlements, and we will continue to review that as necessary.
New Autism Strategy (Autism Act 2009 Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rock
That this House takes note of the Report from the Autism Act 2009 Committee Time to deliver: The Autism Act 2009 and the new autism strategy (HL Paper 205, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this important and timely debate. I thank the members of the committee for their hard work, dedication and thoughtfulness. I thank our specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane, professor of autism studies at the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, for her expert guidance. I also thank our outstanding staff team—Stuart Stoner, Lucy Valsamidis, Abdullah Ahmad, Clayton Gurney and Aneela Mahmood —for their incredible support.
Most of all, I thank everyone who engaged with our inquiry. We were constantly struck by the moving and powerful testimonies. Without all those who engaged, our report would just not have been possible.
The Autism Act 2009 is a landmark law for and about autistic people. The Act began as a Private Member’s Bill but won government support thanks to the tireless efforts of its sponsor, the late right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP, and we pay enormous tribute to her today. The Act requires the Government to produce an autism strategy for England, backed up by statutory guidance. Our committee’s task was to examine how well the Act has been implemented and to inform the development of a new autism strategy ahead of the expiry of the current strategy, which is this July—next month. A key priority for us was to carry out our inquiry in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.
We took oral evidence from, incredibly, nearly 70 witnesses and received written evidence from almost 400 individuals and organisations. Several thousand people also contributed through surveys and consultation exercises. I think that speaks volumes for the engagement and importance of the topic. We also spoke in private to dozens of autistic people and those who support them, including invaluable visits to CareTrade’s employment scheme at St Thomas’ Hospital, just over the river, and Phoenix School in Tower Hamlets.
When the Autism Act was passed, autistic people were often invisible. The Act really helped change that, making government recognise and respond to their needs. When the Act was passed, about one in 100 people were estimated to be autistic—diagnosis rates are now higher than that among younger people but still far lower among older people. That rise is in part because of our understanding of autism, and it has evolved. But there are also worrying signs that more autistic people are struggling. The inequalities are unacceptable and, in many cases, widening. More than 270,000 people are now waiting for an autism assessment, only about three in 10 autistic people are in work and, on average, autistic people live shorter lives.
The Government’s autism strategy for 2021-26 set out laudable ambitions decided in consultation with autistic people and their families but, after the first year, successive Governments produced no plan to deliver or fund the strategy. It is now time to change that. Our central recommendation is that the Government must deliver a new autism strategy, taking effect when the current strategy expires next month. The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock MP, assured us that the Government are
“absolutely committed … to there being a strategy … and to there being an implementation plan”.
He said
“the strategy that we will bring forward is being shaped as we speak”,
and the Government will be
“developing the strategy in 2026”
and
“the input from this Committee will help us shape that strategy”.
But—and I am sad that I have to say “but”—the Government’s response to our report was markedly vaguer, saying:
“We recognise that meaningful engagement will take time, so a balance will need to be struck as to what level of further engagement is required, and the current strategy will remain in force while we do this”.
This is simply just not good enough. The strategy’s expiry date is now weeks away and we seem no closer to delivering for autistic people. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen when the current strategy expires? When will the new strategy come into effect? How are the Government ensuring that the new strategy reflects the findings of our report? How will the Government meaningfully involve autistic people and those who support them in the development of the new strategy? Most importantly, how will they ensure accountability for delivering the change autistic people need?
Our report examined progress against the ambitions in the 2021 autism strategy, and I will address these in turn. First, we considered how to improve public understanding. Awareness of autism has rapidly grown in recent years, but public understanding has not kept pace. The 2021 autism strategy promised a
“public understanding and acceptance initiative”,
but that never materialised. Sadly, many told us that stigma has since increased. We called on the Government to run a public understanding campaign and to commission and evaluate mandatory training for public-facing staff. The Government told us they would “consider” this recommendation. Further inaction is inexcusable, so will the Minister clarify what concrete action the Government will now take to deliver a public understanding campaign and ensure effective training for public-facing staff?
Secondly, we examined systems for identification, assessment and support. Time and again, we heard from our witnesses the powerful evidence of how autism diagnosis changes lives. However, the autism assessment system can also be a bottleneck, giving overstretched services a means to ration access to support. The assessment system is now unfit for purpose. Thousands wait years for a diagnosis and receive little to no support, even when it comes. We called for the Government to move towards a stepped, lifelong model of support, but many fear that moving away from a diagnosis-led model will become an excuse to withhold what little support now exists. The Government’s independent review into mental health, ADHD and autism could offer a real opportunity for a new approach. I would welcome the Minister explaining how the Government will reform and rebuild our broken systems for autism identification, assessment and support, in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.
Thirdly, we considered how to reduce health inequalities and the life expectancy gap. We were truly honoured to take evidence from Paula McGowan OBE, who campaigned successfully for the introduction of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for health and care staff after her son’s tragic death. We pay tribute to Paula and to Oliver’s memory. We must build on this progress, so will the Minister now commit to setting out a plan to enable autistic people to live healthier, longer lives? Many autistic people still fall into the cracks between mental health and social care services, and too often this leads to crisis. We heard truly courageous testimony from many young autistic people who had been detained for years in mental health hospitals. We called for a national framework for low-level support to prevent care needs developing, and a plan to build strong community services, including appropriate housing, for people at risk of in-patient admission. The Government’s response promised only an annual statement on implementation of the Mental Health Act, and in the longer term a national care service, but neither of those is a plan. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will stop unnecessary detention in mental health units once and for all?
Next, we examined how to secure equal access to education and employment. We are setting up a new generation of young autistic people to struggle. Thousands are unhappy at school or are out of school altogether. The right honourable Alan Milburn’s recent review starkly showed how we are failing the million young people who are not in employment, education or training. A disproportionate number of them are autistic. We recommended that the Government build up capability for educating autistic children and young people in all settings, supporting the best special schools to become centres of excellence. The Government’s planned reforms to the SEND system offer a real opportunity to make schools more inclusive, but we also know how worried many are about changes to their rights to specialist support. It is vital that reforms are taken forward in partnership with young autistic people and their families. Young autistic people consistently told us how they face what they describe as a cliff edge in access to support when they become adults and enter the world of work. We called on the Government to develop integrated services to help them through this critical transition. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that every young autistic person has the support they need to give them the very best start in adult life, including implementing the recommendations of the Keep Britain Working review?
Finally, we looked at improving support in the criminal justice system. Like anyone else, autistic people can come into contact with the criminal justice system as victims, witnesses or offenders. But autistic people’s needs are often unmet, leaving them at risk of disproportionate disadvantage. I welcome efforts to deliver the cross-government neurodiversity action plan for adults in the criminal justice system, but the reality is that support remains patchy. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that the criminal justice system treats every autistic person fairly?
The 2021 government autism strategy set a goal that every autistic person should have the support they need to live a full and happy life. Together we can make that a reality, but to do that we need a new strategy, a credible plan to deliver it and clear accountability for change. It is time to deliver the change that autistic people in this country need to see. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, an honour I share with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. More than that, I thank the noble Baroness for her work in persuading the Liaison Committee to agree to set up this committee of inquiry in the first place. She and I started out working together on that, but when I was appointed leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, did the heavy lifting alone and I thank her for that. I also thank the chair of the committee, and the committee itself, for coming forward with a report that is imaginative and shows us a way forward.
“Autistic young people can thrive in the right environment and collapse in the wrong one”.
Those were the words of Alan Milburn in his interim report Young People and Work. The report revealed that among young people who are not in employment, education or training, 22% cited autism as their main limiting condition. Milburn went on to say that benefits assessments
“lend themselves to a binary judgement”
of whether a person is able or unable to work, but this approach does not match the reality of many young people’s life-changing conditions. Autism is a life-changing condition. Seven out of every 10 autistic people want to be in work, but only three out of 10 are actually in work.
Like many, I want to see autistic people in a job, building up their confidence and giving them the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life that we all expect. The recommendations in this report offer us hope of progress, and I certainly hope—Hope with a big H—to see a more positive response from the Government than we have seen so far.
The Autism Act was a critical step forward in the recognition of autistic people, yet successive Governments have failed to deliver the change. With the greatest respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord who will be responding for the Opposition, I can tell them that Dame Cheryl Gillan—who took the Autism Bill through Parliament and with whom I served on the Council of Europe, where we produced a major report on the problems that autistic people are facing across Europe—would certainly have plenty to say about the failures of Governments of all parties if she were with us today. She would be telling Ministers to take this report’s recommendations seriously and to engage with the charitable and voluntary sector to embrace the reforms it proposes.
My most immediate concern is the next autism strategy. It is the key to deciding priorities and making sure those priorities are delivered. The Act placed a strict legal duty on the Government to prepare and regularly review a national strategy to meet the needs of autistic people by improving local services. Is it not alarming to realise that after the first year of the 2021-26 strategy, there was no plan to deliver or fund it? That is a scandal. That strategy will end soon, and the Government say it will remain in place until a new strategy is agreed. Of that new strategy, the Government say that meaningful engagement will take place, but how long will that take? How long will we have to wait?
In response to the report, the Government praise the committee for the large amount of evidence it gathered. In view of that, I ask my noble friend to use that evidence, much of it given to the committee by autism charities and experts in caring and supporting people with autism and their families. Use it in working up the new strategy; I can tell her that it will save countless hours of research by her civil servants. The committee has done the work for you, so use the work that it has done.
The report points to a way we should all embrace and welcome. It calls for the new strategy to identify priority outcomes and produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve those outcomes. The strategy should make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery. To me that is common sense; having said that, I remember that when I was growing up, my mother would say to me, “Son, in life, sense is not that common”. Despite that, I plead with my noble friend to take the common-sense approach. Use the findings of this report to build on the new strategy, and do it right away.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on this committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. It was a privilege not only because of the outstanding way in which our work was guided by her and supported by our clerk, our policy analyst, and our specialist adviser, but because that team brought us into contact with so many autistic people, and others with lived experience. This, of course, was what our committee was all about.
The initiatives that were taken by our team went far beyond what normally happens in committee work. This is an important point that must be made. There will be other cases where the lived experience of those whose issues a committee is considering will matter very much, hence our invitation to the relevant committees to consider ways in which such meaningful involvement can be achieved in the future, if necessary by making changes to the current rules.
It is impossible in the few minutes I have to go over every issue that is discussed in this report. As I look back over our work, however, there are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. The first relates to the importance of diagnosis: the benefits it may bring and the harm that may be done by a failure to diagnose before other interventions are resorted to that may be wholly unsuitable. One of our autistic witnesses spent four years in a mental hospital before a diagnosis revealed what their condition really was. For obvious reasons, we did not explore the reasons for the mistaken placement in that hospital, which was such an unsuitable place for an autistic person to be. The dramatic change that enabled them to lead as normal a life as possible following release from hospital was deeply moving. The new autism strategy to be developed by the Government must ensure that mistakes of that kind do not occur again.
The other side of the coin was revealed during a visit to a special school for children and young people. All the pupils have a diagnosis of autism, or are waiting for one, and all have complex needs and are disadvantaged academically. We met a group of parents who told us of the effect that early diagnosis had had on them and their children. As one parent put it, “Before the diagnosis, I was just talking to my son. After diagnosis, I am talking with him”. An unreachable child had become reachable once the reason for the condition was explained and understood. The new autism strategy needs to address the problem that, far too often, access to a diagnosis is not available. Early diagnosis can make all the difference, not only to the child but to their family.
I turn to the matter of employment. The Government’s new autism strategy should make it a priority objective to increase the employment rate for autistic people. Some of our witnesses drew attention to the risks that taking on an autistic person would involve: there were fears that they would be unlikely to fit in, and of the disadvantages they face in the recruitment process. There is a really positive case to be made here, however, that should point the way forward. One witness—speaking as the neurodiversity and social mobility manager at Babcock International, a major employer—told us that around 20% to 30% of its employees are neurodivergent. That is a remarkable number and includes some brilliantly talented people who, as he told us, challenge the stereotypes of autism and have been able to solve problems that no other engineer could. This positive message needs to be broadcast and built on by the Government. With the right support and in the right place, autistic people have so much good to give to this country. They are valued members of the community.
I have time to mention one other matter which relates to the understanding of autism and the fact that, of course, every autistic person is different. There is no one size that fits all. This matters very much in education, especially for those who are teaching autistic children in mainstream schools. These people may struggle if their needs and fears are not appreciated and addressed. As each case is different, the teacher must be given time to assess the child, to win their confidence and to find out what is wrong. The pressures on the curriculum too often mean that this much-needed time is simply not available. That needs to be changed and the Government need to address it in the proper way, so that teachers can give these people what they need to develop their education and move forward to employment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak in this short debate, as I was to serve on the Select Committee, although I did experience certain frustrations. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her huge commitment to autism and the balanced way in which she chaired the committee. I also thank the clerk, advisers, researchers and staff, who had to cope with a huge volume of evidence and of witnesses who appeared before us. I thank the numerous organisations that gave evidence, in person or in written form. I also acknowledge our debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has campaigned on these issues for several decades, and who was instrumental in getting the 2009 Act on to the statute book.
I mentioned frustration, This arose from having been involved for several years in Autism Cymru and being a Member of this House not domiciled in England. In my 27 years in the Commons, I was heavily involved in disability campaigning and, on returning to the Chamber in 2011, I looked forward to resuming such campaigning work, not least in association with the much-loved late Lord Rix at Mencap. But, on returning, I found myself in no man’s land, because many aspects of disability politics had been devolved.
As stated in paragraph 31 of the report, the UK Government’s autism strategy applies “to England only”. As noble Lords may appreciate, my role in the committee was at times limited and sometimes a cause of personal frustration. I put this on the record as it might be relevant to the authorities of the House when they select Members to serve on “England only” committees in future. The committee invited and received evidence from the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which was appreciated but could be only tangential to this inquiry.
I regret the very limited consideration given by our committee to international practices, which I raised at an early stage because of the huge benefits I had experienced as a member of the Brussels-based Autism Europe. In representing Autism Cymru on that committee, I learned a huge amount relating to good practice in European countries, including many outside the EU. It is my feeling that we could have benefited by considering what lessons we could learn from such European countries.
As soon as it was public, I passed a copy of our report to a senior member of Autism Europe, Mrs Liga Berzina of Latvia, which stated that there are certainly aspects of autism policies in England which rightly get international praise, such as the Autism Act, the ongoing development of a national autism strategy and the SEND framework of educational, health and care plans. From her experience, a key dimension is that every school should have an additional learning needs co-ordinator, with support delivered through individual development plans. Just as other countries benefit from studying experience in England, surely we at Westminster can benefit from considering successful initiatives in other countries.
With regard to the welter of evidence submitted to us, I had three abiding thoughts. First, of all the challenges and experiences we were trying to encapsulate in an integrated approach, there needs to be a flexibility to cope with the huge diversity of challenges and opportunities facing those on the spectrum; such policy applications must therefore be local, as they relate to individual needs. Secondly, we must always see the abilities and potential of those who experience such challenges. It was quite stimulating to receive evidence from such witnesses, and that underscores our responsibility to secure from government a fitting response. Thirdly, our aspirations cannot be secured without additional resources. The magnitude of the cohort crudely described as being “on the spectrum” has grown hugely as our understanding of individual needs has matured. As these individuals get the opportunity to blossom, such policies in due course bear fruit. If the Government merely respond that “There is no more available cash”, they simply have their priorities wrong.
Despite my doubts about serving on this committee, for the reasons outlined, I support the recommendations and hope that the Government will give them an urgent and positive response.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, when we speak about autism and—to expand the debate today—neurodivergence, we are speaking about people with their own strengths, challenges, perspectives and ways of experiencing the world. One point that has stayed with me came from a teacher who described the autistic spectrum as being like a unique combination of different balloons carried by each individual person. Some balloons may represent communication, sensory processing, anxiety, social interaction, confidence or learning styles; the combination is different for every person.
The report rightly highlights that many neurodivergent people continue to experience inequalities across healthcare, education, employment and wider society. Too often, support remains inconsistent and fragmented. We know that, with the right support at an early age and throughout education, neurodivergent children and young people can flourish and reach their fullest potential. Early identification, informed teaching and appropriate support matter, alongside ensuring that families and carers have access to clear guidance and support. Those with lived experience, together with their families and carers, should help shape the support and services available.
Importantly, autism and neurodivergence do not disappear in adulthood. Too often, support falls away once a young person leaves school or transitions into adult services. Many neurodivergent adults continue to face barriers in employment, healthcare and mental health support. That is why I strongly support an all-age approach, something that the committee recognises clearly in its report.
As someone from local government, I emphasise the critical role that councils and local partnerships play in delivering meaningful change. Local authorities are often the front door to support for families through schools, SEND services, housing, adult social care, public health and community services. In Lewisham, our all-age autism strategy brings together education, health, social care, employers and community partners to create a more autism-inclusive borough. A central principle of that strategy is “nothing about us without us”, ensuring that people with lived experience, families and carers help to shape services and decisions.
We should work closely with local authorities across all regions and nations of the United Kingdom to ensure greater consistency in support and opportunity. Local government understands its communities, but councils cannot deliver transformational change alone. It requires partnership and shared responsibility across the whole system. The standard of support available to neurodivergent people should not depend on where someone happens to live.
Autism and neurodivergence should be a golden thread running through government departments, public services, employers and the legislation that we bring forward in this House. Greater understanding of autism and neurodivergence within the justice system is also extremely important. Differences in communication, comprehension and body language can sometimes lead neurodivergent people to be misunderstood, particularly in stressful situations. That is why training and awareness across the criminal justice system are so important.
We also need greater training, awareness and support for employers. Neurodivergent people have enormous strengths, talents and potential, yet too many still face unnecessary barriers to employment, support in the workplace and progression. We must create workplace cultures where neurodivergent applicants and employees feel safe to disclose their neurodivergence and needs without fear of stigma.
Neurodivergent people should feel understood, respected and supported throughout every stage of life. Now is the time for joined-up action and delivery across all levels of government, in partnership with public services, employers, families and carers, and especially those with lived experience.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president, along with my noble friend Lord Touhig, of the National Autistic Society, and I hold lasting power of attorney for autistic adults. I thank the excellent chair of our committee—I genuinely think we would not have got here without her.
When the right honourable Dame Cheryl Gillan MP chose to introduce what is now the Autism Act 2009 in the House of Commons, she did so because she believed that autism is different and that the transition from childhood to adulthood was a cliff face, and that failure to understand and support autistic adults deserved its own Act of Parliament. I can confirm this with certainty, as Cheryl was a friend, and I was privileged to serve on the autism Public Bill Committee with her.
The report before us today is titled Time to Deliver: the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy. The Government’s response to the report is described by the autism charity sector as unacceptable—that is putting it mildly. The new strategy, due next month, has been kicked into the long grass, with no attempt to set out a timetable to plan the new one and no discussion with the autism charities to agree priorities. A request I made to the Minister to discuss this was passed many weeks ago to the Commons Minister, and I have heard nothing since.
I turn to the reason for this small but important Act of Parliament, and to the report, which identifies why autism is different. Autism is a spectrum of degrees. Some will travel through life with minimal need for support and, at the other end, the need will be for 24-hour specialist support. In the middle will be so many for whom this Act of Parliament and its strategy are the blueprint for a place in society that is safe, meaningful and fulfils each individual’s potential. Many will be of average or even higher intelligence, but all people born autistic will die autistic. There is no medication, although there may be additional conditions as well as autism.
Nearly 20 years on from the Act, we still see autistic people with shorter life spans and the highest suicide rate of all neurodiverse conditions. Autistic people are detained in mental institutions and there is a 60% unemployment rate, often for life. I say to the Government that it is really time to deliver. Do not delay the new strategy because other things are going on. If the new proposed SEND policy is not going to be delivered until 2030, that is no reason to halt work on an Act that is already on the statute book. If services to support changes to the Mental Health Act, which has already been passed, will not be in place for some time, that is no reason to delay the strategy.
The 2009 Act states that the Secretary of State for Health must
“prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for meeting the needs of adults in England with autistic spectrum conditions by improving the provision of relevant services to such adults by local authorities”
and “NHS bodies”.
The committee’s report is a year’s work by this House, which, together with discussion with autism charities and those with lived experience, would provide the Government with a new strategy that would make such a difference. It is, after all, the law of the land already. I expect the Government to abide by the law of the land and, when the Minister winds up, to explain how and when they will deliver it.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to commend this report, in particular its emphasis on the importance of the principle of “nothing about us without us”, as referenced by my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham, encouraging the involvement of autistic people, as well as those who support them, in making decisions that affect them and their daily lives.
I want to talk specifically to the part of the report about relationships, sex and health education, RSE, for autistic children—or, in fact, the lack of it. As Dr Felicity Sedgewick said in her evidence, young autistic people are not typically offered RSE that meets their needs. She recommended that adapted, accessible RSE should be developed. The report then refers to the need for RSE to be tailored to the needs of all children with SEND; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I understand why RSE was mentioned fairly briefly in such a comprehensive report, and I believe that this important topic deserves ongoing attention. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that RSE for SEND children should be reviewed as a matter of urgency?
I come at this not as an expert, unlike so many of my fellow noble Lords, but with a stepdaughter who wrote her MA dissertation on the subject, in fact supervised by the committee’s specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane. She is about to embark on a PhD on RSE for SEND children, given that there is so little research in this area. Before and during her undergraduate degree, she worked as a teaching assistant in a SEND school and experienced at first hand the consequences of a paucity of direction, guidance or policy in this area.
As the Government’s response to the report said,
“reforms should be grounded in evidence”.
This is important to parents, teachers and other caregivers, but most of all to young autistic people themselves.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on the truly impressive way in which she chaired our committee and got this group of very knowledgeable people to produce a really tight and very good report. I also add my congratulations to Stuart Stoner and his team and to Professor Laura Crane. We had the wonderful opportunity to meet so many witnesses and organisations as part of this; I learned a lot during this process.
The central issue is about this new strategy. We really have to press government that, this time, it must have a good implementation plan. It was spelled out in the recommendation that detail matters; we are looking for a plan about what, who, when and how, as well as the resourcing and better accountability. There is nothing in the response that says that. In trying to think of a suitable word for the response to the first recommendation, I got as far as “bland”—it did not really say anything, as far as I could see, of any substance. That implementation plan and strategy are vital. Will there be an implementation plan with the strategy? Will it address all these features in the committee’s recommendation about what, who, when, how and resourcing?
Much has already been said about some of the detail, which I will not repeat. I just want to make two big points, the first of which is the human one. Throughout this, I was very struck by the pain and the love, and the private anxieties we heard about, as well as the difficulties of trying to understand and navigate the system and search for solutions, and the emotional toll on individuals and families. I was very impressed by the visit we made under the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope to the Phoenix School, which is a specialist school. There we met parents who suddenly, having come away from a position of bewilderment, were then seeing possibilities in this safe haven for what their children could be. Obviously, that is very relevant to the wider debate about specialist schools and the support for autistic people and their families.
From that visit, I also commend one thing we noticed: the Phoenix School provided an outreach service to other schools, and indeed ran classrooms in some other schools. That model is something the Government should well look at as part of their looking at specialist schools, because it looked as if it was working—although we obviously did not see it.
The other thing that came out of that visit was the importance of communications, technology and speech therapists, whom I have to confess I had not really thought about in quite this detail before. One father there, in a really emotional moment, talked about how he found out how he could communicate with his child, and his child could communicate with him. That, to me, was very impressive.
That is one big point—the human bit that we must not lose—and the second bit is about the system and the culture, a lot of which is, frankly, incoherent. Members of the committee will remember one of our witnesses saying that too often it is
“the state fighting the state”.
One set of policies does not match the other, or they are going in opposite directions, and that is a serious issue. Another issue here is the danger that we will just produce another set of rules, sent out by the centre, which people will have to train on but which are not really owned, as people are just paying lip service to them.
There are examples in other areas where people, despite having appropriate adjustments and their notes and passports written up and so on, were just ignored—with fatal consequences in the case I am thinking of. I know that in Parliament we can rely only on the tools we have of legislation, regulations and guidance—trying to get people to do what we want, if you like—but that is why accountability is so vital and why it runs through this like a thread. But it is not just about accountability: we will know we have succeeded when it is not just accountability hanging over people’s head but a feeling of responsibility. People must feel responsible to do something about the people in front of them.
My question to the Minister is an impossible one: how will the Government address the incoherence in policy and these cultural issues when taking this forward? I am conscious—I have finished my time—that I am in danger of widening this out too far, but let me just leave these points: strategy and implementation, and making sure it is owned. Both parts are vital.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, it was a privilege for me to sit on the Autism Act 2009 Committee. I am very glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the report today. I thank all my colleagues across the House, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who gave me great encouragement when I decided to join the committee. I also thank the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, who was so inclusive towards us and was available for all sorts of extras when we wanted to do things. I thank the clerk Stuart Stoner for all the support he gave us throughout the making of this report. I think I have thanked everybody. Above all, I thank all the families and carers, as well as professionals and organisations, who gave evidence to us; without that evidence, we would not be here today, and we could not have done that report. It was difficult for them to give evidence to us, and it was difficult for us to take the evidence, but it was so rewarding.
The Autism Act was a landmark piece of legislation, and our committee’s report, Time to Deliver, is rooted in the same ambition that autistic people should not be an afterthought in public policy. Time to Deliver acknowledges the progress that has been made, but through the evidence presented to us by people living with autism, or through their experience of working with them or being part of their family or support network, we know that the system in this country is far too slow, systemically fragmented, and difficult and time-intensive to navigate. Families need support at every moment from the time they have a diagnosis or think there is a diagnosis to be made.
I welcome the Government’s response to the report, and I know that Ministers are considering these matters seriously. I hope that over the coming months the Government will work on the United Kingdom’s next autism strategy, to build on that response. To be successful, the next autism strategy must have a clear delivery plan, accountability measures, measurable outcomes and sufficient funding. Autistic people need to be able to feel a difference in their daily lives as a result of any work undertaken.
I will highlight the key findings of Time to Deliver to reaffirm how important this work is. One of the most pressing issues we were presented with was diagnosis, and we learned that nearly 90% of those waiting for an autism assessment had been waiting longer than the NICE recommendation of 13 weeks, and the average is more than 17 months. For a child out of school, as quite often happens, every day without educational support is a waste of their life and future. Every person has to work and has the right to work. We must ensure that everybody is trained. During and after diagnosis, it is a central priority that this is followed up and not left for months before the next appointment.
I will speak particularly about women and girls. The committee found that the diagnosis rate for women and girls was 0.82%, less than half the rate for men and boys, which is 1.84%. Yet waiting list data showed a much more even split between males and females waiting for an assessment. This points to what many women and girls have described for years: being missed, misunderstood or recognised only after years of masking and distress. For girls in school, we know that this exacerbates mental health conditions, while students’ educational needs are not met—as I said earlier, leading to days out of school, truancy, and so on. This has a cascading effect of late diagnosis, poor mental health, difficulties accessing work and struggling with services that do not understand the varying presentations of autism. We met a witness who had been sent to a mental home because people did not understand that she was autistic. Thank goodness, she got through that, but it was awful to hear what had happened to her. I hope that the Government will ensure that the next strategy has a specific focus on autistic women and girls.
In 2024-25, one-third of all pupils with an education, health and care plan had autism recorded as their primary need. These children deserve ambition as well as better support so that they can continue in society.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Rock for her superb chairmanship of the Autism Act 2009 Committee; my fellow committee members; the diligent committee staff; and, above all, the nearly 400 individuals and organisations that submitted written evidence to us.
There is a key figure that we should all remember: 30%. That is the employment rate for autistic adults in this country, against a general working-age employment rate of around 75%. That 45% gap represents the ambitions of tens of thousands of people being unfulfilled. Sir Alan Milburn’s interim NEETs review showed that autistic young people are disproportionately more likely to have been excluded from school and locked out of the labour market. The Government’s mission to get Britain working will not succeed if we continue to overlook one of the most significant untapped pools of talent available to the country.
Sir Charlie Mayfield rightly made the point to our committee that the business case for inclusive hiring is a matter not of corporate social responsibility but of competitive advantage. Autistic employees frequently bring precisely the kind of focused, analytical thinking increasingly valued and required in a complex economy.
In my role as president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I have seen some of these case studies at first hand. Greene King has a supported internship programme, which recruits neurodiverse employees. It finds that with simple adjustments, often, autistic employees thrive and bring real value to the company and its customers. It is not just large corporates. EdCortex, a specialist SME in Guildford, has a recruitment model built around harnessing the skills of neurodivergent workers for data and analytical tasks. I was glad that our committee’s report acknowledged that the right tax incentives are essential to help businesses hire more people facing barriers to employment.
I will touch on the issue of public awareness and acceptance of autism and autistic people. It was notable that, despite receiving a record number of public responses to our consultation, our final report received almost no media coverage and minimal social media interest. Public appetite to give evidence to the committee was inversely proportional to the media’s interest in reporting what the evidence produced. This is not a criticism of any individual journalist, but one of the key planks of the original 2009 autism strategy was raising awareness. Some 17 years on, this lack of interest illustrates the challenges in achieving that goal.
In our evidence session with Ministers, they acknowledged that there is no meaningful or regular analysis of public opinion to measure how awareness and public attitudes towards autism are changing. There is good intent—I can see that—but not the kind of structured, ministerially led initiative that our report and the strategy call for.
There is one small but telling illustration. On World Autism Awareness Day last year, there were no social media posts from No. 10, and there was none this year. What message does this send to the 700,000 autistic adults and children in the UK, and their families?
I will make one final point. It is important that people with autism, who feel comfortable doing so, are open about their diagnosis. In May, I listened to the moving maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, who was sitting over there at the time and who, sadly, is not in her place. She touched on her children and their neurodiversity, I found myself thinking that perhaps I, too, should have declared a relevant personal interest during my work on the committee. I was formally diagnosed as being autistic in my early 40s, but the signs were there from an early age. To mention just one aspect, as a child, I needed extensive sessions with a speech therapist—who is over there—to coax me into speaking. At school, on bad days, I would freeze entirely when asked to read aloud—I feel like that now. But I am lucky: hyperfocus, pattern recognition and pursuit of special interests—without this wiring, I doubt that I would have had the drive to push through setbacks and methodically build seven campaign groups. I am acutely aware that this is not everyone’s story, and that is precisely why updating the autism strategy matters so much.
Too many autistic adults are not given employment opportunities, too many autistic children are being failed by the current SEND system, and too many people have to wait far too long for a diagnosis that might finally explain why the world has always felt slightly harder than it should. I was fortunate in my path. The purpose of the report and the strategy is to make sure that luck has less to do with it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted to be a member of the autism committee, under the very clear direction of our chairperson, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I was very grateful for the direction and guidance from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lord Touhig, who have a particular interest and expertise in this area. I pay tribute to our clerks and special adviser in relation to the topic. I thank the Government for their response, which, I say to my noble friend the Minister, could have been stronger and have indicated a desire to produce an immediate strategy, as much analysis and evidence is already there, particularly from the report that we published last November.
I declare that my cousin’s son is autistic. He displays or exhibits certain characteristics and special interests, on which there is a fixation. But all in all, he is an exceptionally bright child and will do well in spite of his disability.
Far-reaching legislation for autism was enacted in 2009, followed by various strategies. The last strategy was published in 2021 and is due to expire in a month’s time. The Government have stated that it will continue until a new one is in place. I suggest that work on the new strategy should already be under way and publication should take place early in the second half of this year.
Our report called for the Government to develop such a strategy, tackling persistent inequalities experienced by autistic people in education, health, work, criminal justice and the community. Since our report was published, I note that the Government have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, autism and ADHD, launched a call for evidence to inform a mental health strategy and announced a special educational needs reform Bill. Although welcome, I believe this only accentuates the delay in bringing forward the strategy. Maybe my noble friend the Minister could suggest why the Government are proceeding down this course of action, rather than immediately publishing such a strategy. Will those various elements of the Government’s suggested course of action contain the elements of such a strategy?
I am not criticising the Government, but as a member of the committee that published the report, I would have expected the publication of a new updated strategy to be based on much of the evidence that already exists and on the work that has already taken place, because we had extensive interviews with many autistic people, as well as professionals in the field. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: why was this the case? Why have a further review, which involves much work and delay, when much work has already been undertaken? Why not publish an immediate strategy?
Our recommendations included the launch of a new initiative to improve understanding and acceptance of autism and expanding mandatory training on autism for public-facing staff; investment in driving down autism assessment waiting times while developing and scaling up an effective model for identification, assessment and lifelong support; and setting a clear timeline and road map for the development of strong community services so that provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025 to end the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced. Those are some of our recommendations; there are many more. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to have a look at all those recommendations and ensure that they can be placed in a strategy.
How will the Government ensure that autistic people and those who support them are fully involved in any reform of systems for identification, assessment and support? How will they set and pursue priorities for better health outcomes for autistic people in any future autism strategy? I thank my noble friend the Minister and look forward to her response.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I was not a member of the committee but I did give evidence to it, both professionally and as next of kin for two autistic family members. I want to highlight four points relevant to the debate.
First, too many autistic people are still being detained in mental health settings without a mental disorder. Although the new Mental Health Act intends to prevent admissions of autistic people without concurrent mental illness, this provision will not be enacted until there are sufficient community services in place. The Minister knows of my deep concern that without a costed plan, this promise is rather misleading.
The trouble is that, time and again, crisis-driven care is failing people and costing lives, quite apart from being financially very costly. In my government-commissioned report, My Heart Breaks, published in 2023, I reviewed the care of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who were being detained under the Act in long-term segregation. I found no therapeutic benefit at all to this enforced isolation and warned that it causes lasting psychological harm, worsens trauma, damages relationships and can lead to a form of social death.
I am looking forward to the forthcoming annual report from the Care Quality Commission, which now manages the independent care, education and treatment review programme, and to learning about its successes in discharging people, but of course the difficulty is that as people are discharged, new people are still being admitted. In my committee we were unable to identify how many people died unexpectedly during admission, but we know that autistic people, and especially autistic women, are at a higher risk of suicide than non-autistic people. Substantial numbers think about suicide during their lifetime, and up to a third actually plan or attempt suicide.
Many autistic women end up with inappropriate diagnoses, such as personality disorder, that stay with them and delay or prevent access to much-needed care and support. We know that people are being failed long before hospital admission, and we need early trauma-informed community support to prevent crisis-driven care.
This brings me to my third point. No anticipatory care planning is required under the Care Act, despite an obvious risk when there is care breakdown, most notably parental carer death. Does the Minister agree that an effective and simple change to the Care Act would be to require an anticipatory care plan for all family carers of autistic people, perhaps carers over the age of 70? The Minister will be aware of the tragic death of David Lodge beside his elderly father who had died suddenly at home. Ensuring that anticipatory care needs are regularly discussed and reviewed would prevent many inappropriate hospital admissions for autistic people.
I want to end my remarks by reflecting on the gap in life expectancy for autistic people highlighted every year by LeDeR’s Learning from Lives and Deaths: People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People, with death occurring six to 15 years earlier. Currently, not all the LeDeR recommendations are actually implemented, and I ask the Minister to confirm unequivocally that the LeDeR programme will be both strengthened and made mandatory. The Government’s response to Time to Deliver said:
“The government remains committed to reviewing every death of a person with a learning disability or an autistic person that is notified to LeDeR and ensuring that learning from these reviews is shared”.
Is that commitment still true?
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap; it is much appreciated. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for the opening address. I have two autistic grandchildren, and that is one of the things that has occupied a lot of my life during the time we have had them—they are wonderful. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who have given me so much help over time.
I know the Minister cares about people. Care is a good word. It is not just about having a reason or a responsibility. Many things happen. I was very taken with the observation at the very beginning about people. Somebody who has played a very major part in what we are about is Professor Vivian Hill, whom many of your Lordships may know as one of the leading educational psychologists in the country. I have said many times—it is happening and the department is doing it—that we need hundreds of them to get on top of all the delays that your Lordships have talked about today.
I said several times, many years ago, that where SEND is concerned, every single head teacher must have a full SEND programme. It makes all the difference. The heads of all schools must have that. I have also suggested that it is very important indeed that everybody who is becoming a teacher should understand SEND—otherwise, nobody understands what a meltdown is all about.
I know I do not have enough time for this, but the people who suffer most, as I have seen, are the mothers. The mothers suffer hugely without very much help at all. I want to finish off by saying that, like those here, I have been to many schools, and we must do what we said we would do, care to do it and get on to do it. Over the generations, people who are autistic have been the best for music, science and all the other things that have helped the world for many centuries.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where I am not sure whether I can add anything, but I can certainly join in by saying that I agree with what has been said in front of me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, led the committee, which I served on, and I have nothing to disagree with in her summing up of what the committee did. I should let the House know that I got the best-timed rap on the knuckles from her: I said autism was primarily a communication difficulty, and then, with a look that cut to the core of my being, she said, “It’s more than that”, and I went, “Yup, you’re right”.
Autism is a neurodiverse condition that probably has the greatest reach and the greatest divergence—though all of them diverge, as they are all spectrums. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, say that he got through; he is either lucky or brilliant, and I suggest it is the second category, or at least good enough and bright enough to cash in on his luck. If people are “getting through” in that way, we have a fundamental problem. They are dependent on having a tiger-warrior parent—somebody shoving themselves forward to make sure they get through—or else they have to get lucky, with somebody saying that they think they might be in this category. That is why the strategy in front of us is a good idea.
It cuts across everything. We will never get everybody at school, even with the best training in the world, and we will see these traits later on—especially in those people who are struggling through and have done well but have certain behavioural tics, traits or unusual qualities. We must have a more wholly embracing system.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—who we so often go to when we discuss autism—said: it is the law, so do it. Has anybody suggested that we roll back the law? We have the law, so do it. That means we have about two or three weeks before we can ask what the strategy will be and suggest that we get something going.
What is in it for the rest of the community? We might get a few more people employed and paying taxes—that is a good thing for a start, is it not? I declare an interest: I am chairman of Microlink, which provides support packages for people with disability who are in employment. From doing that, I know that such changes are sometimes small. If people had a little understanding—as was talked about here—along with those small changes, many of them could function perfectly well in many parts of the workplace. We should take that on board.
The whole of the Government have to do this—it is not just education but employment services. It is the fact that somebody will function slightly differently in the office and so there must be an understanding and a duty to say, “Yes, they will function and they can do it. They will not hold us back”.
When dealing with autism, the thing is the meltdown—rather badly named, I think, because it suggests that somebody is going to explode, not that they will have a small moment of crisis. I know from talking to one or two people that sometimes they need to go away and be quiet, but if somebody just puts a hand on their shoulder then they are fine. It is the child totally melting down in the classroom. What about the fact that girls do not do this, as was pointed out in this debate, and so do not get discovered? The more we know about this, and the more information we have, the easier a strategy will be to implement. People have to understand the condition a little more and not be quite so frightened of it.
We are informed that we will have a special educational needs Bill and a whole new strategy. I hope that identification and diagnosis—an easier way of making sure people know that someone has a particular set of problems—is something that can be carried through. Autism is definitely something for which that would really be helpful. I hope the Minister will be able to say that, if you are diagnosed in the education system, that will be carried through into the rest of your life. As was pointed out here, you are at school and then you are not, and everything changes. That is a disaster in the making for virtually anybody who has a disability—not just autism but all of them. It will be interesting to see what information can be carried forward—that could be in the strategy or somewhere else. To come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have the strategy so why are we not using it? It is good practice: we are going through so we can carry on.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. When we come to the criminal justice system, are we going to make sure that we have better in-house support for individuals who are caught up in the system? Will we make sure that they are given better protection within it? When you have been in the House for as long as I have, you will know that there are numerous occasions when the police do not understand who they are dealing with and make the situation worse. Will the Government say to the police that this is their job as well? Because people might not quite understand what they are doing, there can be conflict with neighbours, misunderstandings and being led, and conflict with the police. Where is the training? We have a group of people who are used to being trained and going on courses, so what are we doing there?
When it comes to health, any group that has problems with communication—here I risk the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, again—will have poor health outcomes. It is not just autism; those who use sign language have similar problems. What are we going to do in the Department of Health to make sure that there is an understanding—this will be made much easier with some form of diagnosis—that there must be new processes to get the information out of the patient? Our health system is still based fundamentally on the doctor’s appointment and an exchange of information on what the person thinks is the matter with them and then an interaction. If we can get guidance about what we are going to do there, it would once again help us. If that is not in this strategy, where is it? Presumably, we do not want people being ill; that is the whole idea.
As we go through the process of looking at an Act that we have passed and that we all say we want, something we can refer back to is this: why is it not happening? If the Minister can tell us that it is going to happen, that would be great. If she is going to tell us that the Government are going to do something else, let us hear it. At the moment, we seem to be saying that, yes, it is an awfully good idea and we like it, but it is too difficult and it will inconvenience somebody. If that is the situation, the Government should say so and give us something else. At the moment, we have a nice idea that is not being implemented, and we are all waiting on it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Rock for opening this debate, for her work as chair of the Autism Act 2009 Committee, and for her wonderfully concise and coherent summary of the report’s findings. It comes as no surprise to me to hear about her chairing skills and the way she was able to convene people of vastly different views together—and to put noble Lords such as noble Lord, Lord Addington, in order, as it were.
I thank all noble Lords who served on the committee—including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who, despite his understandable frustration, managed to persist and contribute in a meaningful way—and the individuals and organisations who gave evidence to the committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, without them there would be no report.
The Autism Act 2009 was a landmark piece of legislation introduced by the late Conservative MP, Dame Cheryl Gillan, and passed with cross-party support. I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to her friend, my noble friend Lady Browning, for championing this issue for so many years. I learned much from her contributions on the Mental Health Bill and from one-to-one conversations about autism.
The Act was the first disability-specific Act of its kind anywhere in the world and established the important principle that people with autism—or autistic people—should not be overlooked by government or public services and should receive the support they need to live independent and fulfilling lives. The committee’s report provides a stark assessment of what more must be done for that ambition to be realised. As others have said, why is it not being done?
Across healthcare, education, employment, housing, and the criminal justice system, autistic people continue to face barriers that limit their opportunity and diminish their quality of life. As your Lordships have heard, the committee’s central recommendations were straight- forward and unambiguous. It urged the Government to begin work immediately on a new cross-government autism strategy to come into effect when the current strategy expires in 2026.
However, the Government’s response has been commented on as notably cautious. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said it could have been stronger. While Ministers agreed to consider the committee’s recommendations, they declined to commit to many of the report’s specific proposals. Since then, unfortunately, we have had little clarity about what will replace the current strategy or, indeed, whether there will be a new strategy and, if so, when it will be published. That uncertainty is clearly of concern to noble Lords on all Benches and those who work or live with autistic patients or family members.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, for sharing her experience from local government. When we are talking about national strategies, we often ignore the local elements. The current national strategy, published by the last Conservative Government in 2021, established six priority areas: understanding, support, employment, health inequality, community support, and justice. While there has been some progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, progress has been insufficient under Governments of all colours. That means that those priorities remain highly relevant today. Regrettably, the evidence presented to the committee suggests that many of these challenges remain unresolved.
One area of particular concern is diagnosis and assessment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out. The number of people seeking autism and ADHD assessments has increased dramatically in recent years. The Government recognised the scale of this challenge by commissioning the independent review into autism and ADHD diagnosis. I saw that the interim report was updated today, in advance of the final report that is expected this summer. There are legitimate questions about how services should respond to the growing demand but, whatever conclusions the review reaches, one fact is beyond dispute: rising demand makes effective planning more important, not less.
The committee rightly emphasised that support should not be delayed any longer than necessary. It asked the Government to outline what steps they are taking to ensure that support is based on genuine need and is sustainable. So, in seeking answers from the Government, I repeat the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Rock. Do the Government expect to publish a new autism strategy before the current one expires? If not, when will they publish it? Will it be accompanied by updated statutory guidance under the Autism Act, as recommended by the committee? How will the findings of the independent review be incorporated into that work?
On employment, the previous Conservative Government took important steps to support disabled people into work, including through the national disability strategy and the local supported employment programme. Yet too many autistic people remain excluded from the labour market despite possessing valuable skills and talents, as my noble friend Lord Elliott pointed out when he very movingly shared his own experience. Indeed, I remember speaking to a Transport Minister, who shall remain nameless, who told me that when it comes to the timetabling for railway services, quite often the very best people in timetabling are those who are somewhere on the spectrum. That just shows that we are not taking advantage of those very specific skills that would contribute to the economy and the growth that this Government want to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, spoke about the importance of relationship and sex education. It is an important point, which she was right to emphasise, because it is one of the ways in which we can raise awareness and make people who are autistic—or autistic people—feel more included in our communities.
We welcome the Government’s stated ambition to reduce economic inactivity and narrow the disability employment gap, but ambitions alone are not enough—the detail and delivery matter. My noble friend Lord Sterling spoke very movingly about wanting a better future for his autistic grandchildren.
On healthcare and community support, the committee heard compelling evidence about health inequalities and the continuing challenges faced by autistic people in in-patient settings. During the passage of the Mental Health Bill, MPs and Peers on all Benches were repeatedly pressed for robust plans to ensure adequate community support. The lack of sufficient support has been made clear in the report. I thank and pay tribute to the autism charities and advocacy organisations that have continued to hold Governments of all political affiliations to account. Their message has been consistent: autistic people and their families must be at the heart of policy development.
The committee has provided the Government with a clear road map. The challenge now is not in identifying the problems but in delivering the solutions. Those of us, from all parties, who have been in government know that good intentions often come up against the Treasury’s financial discipline. That is no bad thing, since we expect the Treasury to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. But this is where fine aspirations often meet financial prudence. So I ask the Minister: has there been any assessment of the cost of delivering the strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, alluded to the cost. If there is an estimated cost, and if it has met resistance from competing priorities within the relevant government departments, or from other government departments, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about—the state fighting the state—or even from the Treasury, has the Minister’s department looked at which of the recommendations could be delivered by better deploying existing spending?
Which recommendations might actually save the Government money? As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many of these people will become taxpayers, save the Government money and contribute more positively. Which of the recommendations may have to wait for future spending rounds? I hope the Minister will accept that I ask those questions in a spirit of pragmatism and trying to be constructive.
The Autism Act was a pioneering piece of legislation. Seventeen years later, the report from the committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Rock makes it clear that autistic people deserve clear leadership and a credible strategy for the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the work that is under way and how, when and with whom it will be delivered. I hope she is able to provide reassurance to noble Lords across the House who have raised many concerns and want to work constructively with the Government to deliver for autistic people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for leading this important debate and, as many noble Lords have said, for chairing a committee that was very thorough and gathered powerful evidence, including from autistic people, families, carers and professionals. I too extend my gratitude to all members of the committee. It is a very strong piece of work, which I believe will take us forward.
We welcome the final report and the recommendations and have set out our initial response. Straight away, I should say that I have heard the various views across the Chamber about the quality of the response and I have also heard very clearly the frustration that there is not an immediate strategy to replace this current one. I say that in all seriousness, not least because I will be sharing those views with the Minister now responsible for this very important area, Preet Gill MP. On that point, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for not having had a response to a request for a meeting with the appropriate Minister. I will indeed pursue this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we turned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, as we so often do; I also often turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and very wise we all are in doing so. The work of the committee is indeed helping us to better understand the challenges, the opportunities and the changes that are needed. Yes, I say to my noble friend Lord Touhig that the work of the committee will absolutely inform development of the revised autism strategy, as indeed it should.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for bringing their personal experience to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was most open about his personal experience and we heard from parents, loved ones and, indeed, grandparents in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. This brings the subject about which we are speaking very much to life. I do agree that too many autistic people face significant challenges in education, employment, health and wider participation in society. That has lasting impacts on independence and well-being. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who observed early on in the debate that autistic people are individuals. Again, I very much take that point.
The response to that will be rooted not only in the new strategy but throughout the 10-year health plan and in—as we will see when it comes to this House—the Health Bill, particularly the moves to establish a single patient record, which will overcome a number of the points that noble Lords rightly raised. It is the case that, too often, people are expected to navigate very complex systems rather than simply secure the care and support they need and which would respond to their individual needs. I do not think that is so much to ask, and I am sure the committee would agree, and that does have to change. We are moving towards a needs-based approach, focused on early intervention and joined-up support around individual needs. That is central to our wider reforms, including changes to the SEND system.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about the model of Phoenix schools. I would certainly welcome, as would officials, more information about that. It is good to see good practice in action. I want to acknowledge the important local work that is under way. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke to this point. All of this is about building more inclusive communities where autistic people can thrive. The work that my noble friend Lady Dacres described in making Lewisham an autism-inclusive borough through its all-age autism strategy, was commendable and echoes with me. “Nothing about us without us” is, I think, good guidance.
The Autism Act was enacted in 2009 and I pay tribute to all those who went before us to make that happen. There have been subsequent autism strategies, but the reality is, as has been observed, that progress has been inconsistent and outcomes have not improved as they should have. We are very well aware—and I certainly am more so today—of the concerns raised about the importance of having an effective national strategy in place. I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the current strategy does remain in place until it is replaced.
Noble Lords recognise, as I do, that the landscape has changed significantly since the current strategy was published in 2021. The challenges that face the health system now are much more acute. Services are seeing more patients with more complexity, and demand continues to outstrip supply. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and other noble Lords said, some 270,000 people are waiting for an autism assessment, and around 90% of them are waiting at least 13 weeks. That is why it is so important that we focus on earlier intervention and help people to get the support they need without necessarily needing a diagnosis as we expect now.
My noble friend Lady Goudie spoke about girls and women facing particular struggles. Data does show that we are seeing an increase in referrals for female diagnosis. There is, perhaps, a suggestion there that increasing awareness of this issue is supporting improvements in this area. I am very much looking forward in particular—but not exclusively—to the recommendations of the independent review on the prevalence of, and support for, mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, chaired by Professor Fonagy. It is expected this summer and will speak to the very point about how we can respond to increasing demand more effectively. It will look at drivers for that demand, about which, we must be honest, there is often not clarity, and I hope that this will greatly assist.
Now to the very important points raised with me about the Government’s plans for a future strategy and the timescales by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Touhig, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and other noble Lords. As I said, we remain fully committed to publishing a revised and, I emphasise, cross-government autism strategy—the cross-government point being another aspect that I know the committee was very keen on. I will disappoint noble Lords somewhat, but I hope I can give reassurance that I am not going to disappoint them too much. In my view, it is important that the timetable for establishing the strategy takes proper account of the timelines of relevant cross-government reviews.
I will come back to this very shortly, but developing the revised strategy—the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, pressed this point—has to be grounded in evidence, shaped by engagement, as many noble Lords asked, and be realistic about the pressures facing the system. Therefore, we have to focus on ensuring that people can access support at the right time. On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, we need to remove unnecessary barriers in a way that reflects individual needs. That means carefully considering a number of areas, including the recommendations of the committee’s Time to Deliver report, as well as, as I have mentioned, the findings of the independent prevalence and support review, which has not yet been published, and other important cross-government work, again spoken to in this debate, such as the independent Milburn review on the increase in the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and the insights from the consultation on SEND reform. All these will help shape the Government’s response and next steps.
Fortunately, we have these things in train and they are reporting soon, but not in time for the end of the current strategy. Therefore, I am not in favour, and I do not think any noble Lord would want me to be, of publishing a revised strategy to meet a timeline that does not now reflect the timelines that are more current, more evidence and more consideration. I want this to be the best strategy we can get. I want it to be a strategy that can deliver. In that respect, I cannot give a timeline, but I have indicated what is being considered and when those matters will be reported on.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and other noble Lords, that we are absolutely engaging with those with lived experience. That is key to success. We will also consider the need for a new system to bring together information from autistic people. I think that is work we have to do.
To pick up some other points, I recently announced plans for a new cross-government mental health strategy—that will also be very relevant to this area. That will be published later this year. It will explicitly consider the mental health needs of autistic people and people with ADHD. Together with the autism strategy, all these areas of work, which are very practically focused, will support a more joined-up system for those with neurodevelopmental conditions or mental health needs.
Of course, the autism strategy does not sit in isolation, and we work closely with the Department for Education on SEND reforms ensuring that joined-up support is available across education and health and care services, as noble Lords have rightly expressed. It is key that we have the right support available at every stage of the education of children and young people. My noble friend Lady Antrobus referred to the RSE curriculum. The new RSE curriculum and guidance are quite clear that schools should ensure that subjects are accessible for pupils with SEND. It is ultimately the school’s responsibility to ensure that resources and teaching materials—I heard the point about the need for greater teacher time—are accessible for all pupils and are sensitive to pupils’ needs. I emphasise again that, no matter one’s age, we are all individuals. The consultation on SEND reform has just closed. The feedback is being considered before we set out the Government’s response and next steps. We are also taking steps now. On 5 June, we published guidance for the new experts at hand offer, and we have appointed a national panel of experts to develop new national inclusion standards and specialist provision packages.
I want to refer to some other points that were raised. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, with further detail on her assertion that a simple change to the Care Act to require an anticipatory care plan would be one way to manage that.
I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, my noble friend Lady Dacres and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who raised matters relating to the justice system. The final update of the neurodiversity action plan was published in February. It highlights significant progress made across the criminal justice system in supporting autistic people. I should add that to improve prison screening processes and practices, a new additional learning needs tool was introduced in October 2025 as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool identifies adjustments that might support them.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that our reforms to the Mental Health Act will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people so they can be detained for treatment only if they have a co-occurring medical health condition that requires hospital treatment. That is something we correctly spoke about at some length during the passage of the Mental Health Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, pressed home the need for greater training for employers. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber know that employment rates remain significantly lower for autistic people. That is not acceptable. Our £1 billion connect to work programme will support around 300,000 people. This is alongside reforms to Disability Confident. We continue to work with employers to build more inclusive workplaces. Of course, the work of the former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, through his review will be very helpful in this regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, raised the fact that autistic people, especially women, are at higher risk of suicide. I recognise that. In the suicide prevention strategy, autistic people, children, young people, pregnant women and new mothers are priority groups for the provision of tailored and targeted support. On the matter of training, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, mandatory training on learning disability and autism for health and care staff will support the necessary shift to empowering patients and preventing sickness rather than just treating it. Again, that is key.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that avoidable deaths are unacceptably high. We remain committed to reviewing every death notified to LeDeR and ensuring that learning from reviews is shared. On the point about local services, every integrated care board is expected to have an executive lead on LeDeR and to prioritise LeDeRs.
I am most grateful for the questions and for the way in which noble Lords have pressed the importance of the strategy. I accept that. I want to ensure that we get this right. With the assistance of the committee’s report, I know that we will.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I thank all participants in today’s debate. Passion, care, empathy and understanding have really shone through, and I am grateful to Members of this House. It is incredibly important that we support our autistic community.
I know that many people have thanked them, but I think it is worth paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for bringing the committee to life. We would not all be here without the two of them. I pay tribute to all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes in the committee as well.
I want to thank one person above all else: my son, who is 25 and autistic. He has taught me so much about the extraordinary way in which autistic people can contribute to our wider community, as was recognised by many Members today.
We have a unified voice here today. We heard a lot about what we need to do and what needs to be delivered. We need a new strategy and I am grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that there will be one, but we did not hear from her about an implementation plan or accountability: that was another unified message that came through loud and clear from Members today. But we are weeks away. It is reassuring that the strategy will continue, but we really need a sense of urgency from the Government.
It is disappointing—I know the Minister has used the word “disappointing” a number of times in her response—about the timing. Perhaps the Government need to read our report again, because we have done all the heavy lifting and the hard work. This can be delivered and we do not need to wait for other things to go on; in my opinion, they should not be holding up a new strategy. I thank the Minister kindly for her enthusiasm in making sure that we get this right, because we really need to do so, but it is not a surprise that we are meant to be having a new strategy in July: we have known about this for a long time.
I sum up by saying: we need a new strategy, an implementation plan and accountability, and it is up to the Government now to deliver.
Working From Home (Home-based Working Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
That this House takes note of the Report from the Home-based Working Committee Is working from home working? (HL Paper 196, Session 2024-26).
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, it is now 18 months since the Home-based Working Committee was established to conduct a special inquiry into the effects and future development of home-based working in the UK. At that time, barely a day went by when there was not a media story about working from home, so the time was very definitely right for the sort of evidence-based, in-depth inquiry that this House does so well. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, whose idea it was to have this inquiry and who steered it through the Liaison Committee.
In November 2025 the committee published its report, titled Is Working from Home Working? The Government and the Office for National Statistics both responded in February 2026. It is a pleasure to be able to debate the report this evening and I am pleased to see so many of the committee members here. They were all very committed to the work we were doing and were challenging but constructive throughout the inquiry. Despite coming at the subject from a range of perspectives, we reached a consensus on the report.
I am grateful to the many people and organisations who gave evidence, both written and in person. I put on record my appreciation for the hard work and commitment of our specialist adviser, Dr Cevat Aksoy, and our committee staff Dom Walsh, Robert Wilson, Mark Gladwell and Lara Orija.
It is evident that there has been a rapid growth in remote and hybrid working since 2020. It was of course driven initially by the pandemic, but it now represents a significant change in the way that work is done by many in the UK. Since that time, the UK workforce appears to have settled into what has been described as a new normal, where a large minority work from home at least some of the time. At the time our report was published, ONS data suggested that 13% of working adults in Great Britain worked from home all the time and a further 26% worked from home some of the time. We also found that the UK has one of the highest rates of home-based working globally. As our report makes clear, these major changes in working practices represent both opportunities and risks for the workforce, for employers and for wider society.
The committee found that government policy and data collection regarding remote and hybrid working sit across multiple departments and agencies. The committee recommended that the Government should allocate ministerial responsibility for the co-ordination across departments of data on the prevalence and impacts of remote and hybrid working.
The committee also noted that there are significant limitations with the data collected by the ONS on remote and hybrid working, so we recommend that the ONS should start regularly collecting and publishing additional data on variable levels of hybrid working. For example, when it says that someone is working from home, that could mean one day a month or four days a week. Its data does not split that up.
The Government indicated that they would consider routes to improving evidence sharing and data collection. The Department for Business and Trade specifically says that it will engage across government to shape flexible working policy and evaluate its impact. The ONS said in a separate response to our report that it was engaging with the department, but that any extension to the data collected would require sponsorship from a government department. So the first of what I suspect will be many questions to the Minister tonight is: can the Government confirm that they will support the ONS to gather data on these variable levels of hybrid working? What steps have the Government taken to capture detailed data on how different groups experience home-based working?
The committee found that home-based working has mixed effects on individuals’ physical and mental health and well-being. There was an overall perception that the impact of home-based working is positive, but that is derived mostly from self-reported evidence. There is no doubt that people with disabilities and carers may have an improved experience of work or may be able to work where otherwise they could not. However, others may be disadvantaged: in particular young people who miss an interpersonal connection, or people with unsuitable home working environments. The Government have acknowledged this evidence gap and highlighted plans for a vanguard taskforce and workplace health intelligence unit, to be established as part of their Keep Britain Working programme. These initiatives will examine how flexible work arrangements can support individuals with long-term health conditions to stay in work. Can the Minister give us a timeline for the establishment of that unit?
The committee welcomed findings that the flexibility of home-based working can benefit individuals with disabilities and with parental and caring responsibilities. The Access to Work scheme provides important support to enable people with disabilities to work, including working from home, yet the committee heard that the scheme was facing administrative and financial difficulties. The Government have stated that a consultation to inform the future direction of Access to Work has concluded and plans will be set out in due course, so I wonder whether the Minister is able to update the House on that this evening. Can she also confirm that remote and hybrid working arrangements will continue to form part of any new scheme?
The committee also heard that groups of people can face challenges in accessing and benefiting from remote and hybrid working, and recommended that the Government promote equitable access through awareness campaigns targeted at employers that focus on specific sectors, regions and demographics where prevalence is lower than it could be. The Government have said they will consider how to target communications on flexible working towards worker groups and businesses that are less likely to work flexibly now.
I ought to note at this point that the term “flexible working” can and often does include hybrid and remote working, but it also encompasses a whole range of other practices. That is an important distinction when we think about the question of equity across the workforce for those whose jobs are simply not able to be done from home, so we welcome the inclusion of flexible working opportunities as a sub-criterion in the Government’s Social Value Model procurement tool.
I turn to productivity. The committee was surprised by a lack of data on the impact of remote and hybrid working on productivity. Evidence on personal productivity was self-reported. Many workers tend towards the view that they are more productive at home—that is hardly surprising given the reduction in commuting time and the potential autonomy to manage their own time effectively. Employer views were much more mixed. Around one-third thought their workers were less productive at home, around one-third thought they were more productive, and around one-third thought it did not make much difference—make of that what you will. However, all employers focused instead on intangible but important issues such as collaboration, creativity and workplace culture. Pretty much all of them reported improved recruitment and retention. In its response, the ONS described plans to develop a linked employer-employee data infrastructure, which would include productivity measures. The ONS aims to publish a technical note and a set of exploratory statistics in the second half of this year.
Overall, we concluded that by retaining the flexibility of remote work and the collaborative benefits of in-person work, the hybrid model has the potential to be the best of both worlds, but only if it is co-ordinated and well managed. We heard that there is little value in employers establishing a hybrid working mandate unless they take steps to ensure that collaboration actually happens. We heard lots of stories of people commuting into the office only to spend the whole day on Zoom calls. Employers need to work harder to make sure that teams are attending the office on the same day and that collaboration is enabled.
It was made very clear to us that strong management skills can alleviate the potential downsides of home-based working. Several witnesses, including from professional associations, told the committee that many managers need much more training in how to facilitate effective remote and hybrid working. The committee recommended that the Government publish guidance on managing employees in these circumstances and incentivise investment in management training, such as by reconsidering the proposed cuts to level 7 apprenticeships. In response, the Government suggested that existing support for management training is sufficient. Perhaps I could gently urge the Minister to have a look at our evidence again, because it strongly suggests otherwise.
Employers that the committee spoke to generally agreed that the Government should avoid further regulatory and legislative intervention regarding remote and hybrid working. This was particularly the case with the so-called right to switch off, where there was a widespread sense that a code of conduct is preferable to legislation. Several witnesses suggested that the Government should reconvene the Flexible Working Taskforce, and the committee asked the Government to explain why it had been disbanded. In response, the Government said that they have launched a consultation on flexible working. As part of the plan to make work pay, the Government will look to establish a more structured and official-led stakeholder group. Can the Minister update the House tonight on what progress has been made in setting up this stakeholder group? The make work pay consultation on improving access to flexible working closed in April. Can the Minister provide an update on the initial findings?
We heard that employees tend to be more supportive of home working than employers. There is a preference gap of about one day: most employees would rather be in the office two days and at home three days, while employers prefer it the other way. This emphasises the importance of ongoing dialogue between employers and employees. We spent quite a lot of time discussing the industrial relations aspects of this.
We also spent a lot of time discussing employers’ back-to-office mandates. The evidence we took suggests that, while these were becoming more common, they quite often codified hybrid work rather than mandating full-time office attendance. The Employment Rights Act allows employers to reject a flexible working request if it is deemed reasonable. However, there is a lack of clarity over the definition of “reasonable”—clearly, what is reasonable to an employer is unlikely to be reasonable to an employee. The committee recommended that the Government consider the risk of litigation and its impact on the tribunal system, which is already struggling, if there is no more clarity on the definition of reasonable. I wonder why the Government consider that the tribunal data from the current system preceding the new reasonable test means that the new test will not significantly increase the tribunal system’s workload.
The committee found that remote and hybrid working have the potential to support wider government priorities relating to increasing employment levels, especially for people with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities. The committee recommended that the Government explain whether home-based working will form part of the thinking behind Get Britain Working and the connect to work programme.
The committee recommended that the Government conduct further research into understanding the wider consequences of changing work patterns. This would encompass regional differences, urban-rural policy, transport, and the retail and hospitality sectors. The committee spent some time looking at these, but we were bedevilled by the same lack of data in this area as in a number of others. It is true to say that the broader the scope of the area you are looking at, the harder it is to nail down whether working from home was causing the issue or whether it was other changes in the economy —or, in the case of the retail sector, things such as energy prices and employment costs. It is quite difficult to tease that out.
The committee found that digital technologies are critical to facilitating access to remote and hybrid working. We recommended that the Government increase long-term investment in digital infrastructure, such as by committing to further funding of Project Gigabit. The Government should support the development of digital skills. We were all surprised to hear how many younger people, while clearly having certain digital skills, do not have the right skills to bring into the workplace, even digitally. That came as a surprise to all of us. In response, the Government said that the proposed statement of strategic priorities has established that business connectivity should be treated as a priority by Ofcom. That is not the same as household connectivity, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that. The Government also noted that digital access and the development of digital skills are being supported by the digital inclusion plan.
The committee found that future developments in remote and hybrid working are difficult to predict. Some sectors may see remote jobs supplanted by AI, while others may find that automation increasingly allows work to be completed at home. The committee has recommended that the Government set out their approach to how AI will relate to remote and hybrid working.
The committee concluded that the long-term social and economic effects of remote and hybrid working are still unclear. There are risks in the long term for collaboration, productivity and skills development. The committee recommended that further research be conducted on the long-term effects of home-based working and that the Government should provide funding for academics to complete this work, facilitating access to longitudinal data.
Our report shed light on the opportunities and challenges that remote and hybrid working pose to individuals, employers and society. However, gaps in the available data remain. We still do not have a full understanding of how different groups experience home-based working and what the long-term impact of the growth of this will be. I beg to move.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who chaired the proceedings of the committee with considerable skill and good temper, as we were all searching for data which does not exist and may never exist, I suspect, given the Government’s priority list. She gave us a good lead all the way through, and, with the help of the secretariat, a good and practical report has been produced. I much congratulate our chairman.
The sudden expansion of working from home during the recent pandemic was, let us be honest, a huge surprise to all of us. Interestingly, and topically, I note that the BBC is going to cover the World Cup working from home in Salford—I look forward to the efforts to make Salford look like San Francisco. Workplace change is generally very slow, but, as the pandemic raged, the expansion of home working took place in a great rush. It was interesting the way that new technology came along at the same time as the pandemic struck. If you had a laptop, a smartphone or a desktop, you could hold meetings with colleagues and see them almost anywhere in the world. It spread like wildfire. Sales of the appliances soared, some bought by employers for workers and others bought by the workers themselves. No longer was digital technology restricted to people with special skills and special knowledge of technology.
This response was necessary to maintain output and economic growth—and, of course, keep down unemployment—during the pandemic. The combination of the pandemic and technology was remarkable, and we were very lucky that it stopped things from getting considerably worse than they already were. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the impact was not general. Many jobs—for example, in health, hospitality and factories—could not be executed remotely, and face-to-face contact was still essential. Other areas, especially office-based work, were highly appropriate for remote working, and it spread rapidly in that sector, as well as some others.
From my perspective, the change has been very successful. There is no convincing evidence about productivity—although the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly talked about the range of opinions—but it seemed to me all the way through the proceedings that the quality of management was crucial. If home working was well managed, then companies were pleased with it. If it was not, they were not. The same is probably true of looking at productivity in a fixed workplace of a traditional kind. Major changes in workplace practices are often controversial, with workers sometimes being involved in disputes. Discussions about working time, overtime, and maternity and paternity leave can be contentious in workplaces. But this did not generally occur, as far as we are aware, with the introduction of working from home in the pandemic. There were some problems, certainly, but not anything significant. That was to the credit of British employers and workers, who kept up output in the teeth of a frightening pandemic. It is important to acknowledge just how well we thought they did.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, we seem to have settled into a new normal, where a large minority of workers now work from home, or remotely, at least for some of the time, but that is not the end of the story. Working from home is a phenomenon, but it may be overshadowed by the arrival of another one. Artificial intelligence, which is lurking just around the corner, is likely to be most powerfully felt in those sectors which have introduced working from home the most widely, particularly clerical work and work in offices. It will have a major impact on the future of work; maybe that is a subject for another report by a House of Lords committee.
I finish with one question: do the Government accept that guidance is needed in respect of the proposed code of practice, and what constitutes reasonable, as far as employers dealing with requests from workers for flexible working is concerned? We have started something here, and this will continue on a bigger scale, particularly when we see new technology coming along in the form of AI.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I too warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her report: thoughtful, practical, and admirably free from dogma. I think we are all going to ask her to review the report a couple of years’ time, because it is clear that we need more evidence.
As has been well said, the pandemic accelerated what the committee calls a previously “modest and gradual shift”. We have a new reality, with 13% of working adults in Great Britain working from home, 26% in a hybrid way. We do not want to turn back the clock. For carers, disabled people and parents, it has been life- changing and, properly managed, hybrid working can offer the best of both worlds. I can remember going to work and pretending that I had a very important meeting, when actually I was going to see my children’s primary school play. We have all been in situations where we were rigidly supposed to stay at our desks with no flexibility—we might work in the evening, we might do anything, but no, it was the nine-to-five commitment —but the world is very different now. At the same time, what matters is what works for both parties, and I worry that the pendulum may go too far. Employees owe their employer commitments and obligations, as well as the employer owing them to the employee.
Businesses have different requirements. They need people to come in at different times, and many people cannot work from home. If you look at the workers out in Belfast last night—the emergency services—they had to go to work. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, will know that people in the health service have to go to work. People talking about working at home can be a little bit precious about their world. The key is that it requires management, and within management the key person I would like to have seen more reference to in the report is the chief people officer, whose job is to make sure you get 110% value out of people, and not 90%. That is all about motivation, engagement and leadership; it is at the heart of productivity. The CPO’s role is about culture, engagement, and performance management—always incredibly difficult, but how much more difficult is it when people are working from home? Workforce planning is at the heart of deciding how you are going to organise jobs that involve working from home. I was talking to someone at a utility the other day. All the call centres are now organised with people working at home, but there is a requirement to come into work on a regular basis to meet colleagues, have training and raise issues. It can be done, but it requires a great deal more thought and analysis.
For some people and businesses, working from home is essential. The Minister used to work for Standard Chartered bank. If you have to be on the telephone to Hong Kong in the morning and to America in the evening, this is very difficult to do without flexible working. If tech businesses had to be constrained by the talent pool in their local area, that would be extraordinarily limiting. It is a context between the business, activity, individuals and the employers, and we should try to be unprejudiced, objective and, above all, evidence-based as we look for a way forward.
More must be said about young people, because the Milburn report, which we have all found harrowing and deeply alarming, stated that one in eight people is now not in education, employment or training. Without action, that could become one in six. Of all the people who need to go to work—to learn, listen, be exposed to the watercooler moment, and have bossy people such as me wandering around on management walk- abouts, seeing when they look miserable or out of order —young people should be able to go to a work environment whenever possible. That is very easily said.
I also believe that older people should go to work, because they become rather comfortable. They are better off, live further away, like their house, have their dog, and they are in their comfort zone. In fact, they are stuck in a rut and becoming fossilised. They need to go to work to learn about TikTok and the next generation.
Hybrid working needs good management, analysis and thought. It is here to stay. We do not yet have all the answers, but the noble Baroness and her committee have helped us to understand a few more of the answers rather better.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for so ably chairing the committee, and for her excellent introductory speech covering the findings that most of us will probably repeat in part.
I intend to concentrate on health and disability issues. I welcome the Government’s response to the potential health benefits and risks associated with remote and hybrid working. For many, working has significant health benefits, particularly at home, but for others—those who live alone—it can induce loneliness and isolation, leading to withdrawal, anxiety and depression. The committee found that some opt to work from home and concurrently manage caring responsibilities at home in the same environment. Although findings were not definitive, this may disproportionately affect women who work from home. Constantly juggling work and caring roles is difficult and may result in stress. However, it may provide significant cost and time savings in terms of travel, thus reducing employees’ resulting financial worry.
Some companies report monitoring people’s activity at home during working hours, which may be entirely reasonable, but some home workers find that intrusive and anxiety-provoking. The Government’s response states that the Health and Safety Executive will promote its home working guidance, which should address such concerns and make recommendations for employment best practice to support people working from home while monitoring work output. Though I know little about cyber security, there are definite risks if people do not stick to the rules of their employer when working from home, which may in turn lead to loss of employment.
How many companies actually visit the working environments of home workers to ensure that their employees have the correct equipment and sufficient physical room to work safely all day? Or is this to be solely the responsibility of the worker to decide? During Covid, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, working from home was a huge bonus, but post pandemic many found that they had to work from home for at least part of their hours of employment, as so many companies reduced the amount of office space they provided. For some, this is an advantage: from evidence given to the committee on health, hybrid working has widely been seen as positive. However, others continue to work with inadequate desk and chair space, and are not provided with suitable ergonomically designed equipment, potentially leading to significant musculoskeletal problems.
I acknowledge that the Keep Britain Working programme is considering how employers and government will build healthier, more inclusive workplaces and refine best practice, with the aim of reducing sickness and absence and promoting employment for disabled people. Workplace adjustments and flexible working may well support those with health conditions to enter and stay in work, which is welcomed.
Conversely, it is possible that employers may encourage disabled employees to work only from home, leading to loneliness and a lack of opportunity for promotion. That may be more cost-effective for employers and reduce the cost of the Access to Work government grant scheme. However, I do not believe that this should lead to a reduction in benefits that fund individual workers’ transport to work, which support disabled people to get to work and stay in work. Can the Minister assure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to fund specialist equipment, through grants for ergonomic furniture, assisted software and other adapted equipment for disabled people working on company premises and at home? Similarly, is it intended to legislate to ensure that everyone working from home should be provided with the right equipment by their employer to conduct their work safely and effectively?
We did not take evidence relating to piecework at home, but we did learn about its history. Are further regulations needed to protect home workers to ensure that output numbers expected for pieceworkers by employers can be produced within the contracted hours that they are paid for at home? How will the Government ensure that all pieceworkers earn at least the minimum wage for the hours they work?
Some employees reported unreasonable expectations by employers who expected availability out of contracted hours, and associated stress as a result. People working from home report less sick leave. Are they working while unwell or are they healthier due to being able to work at home? Many home-based workers reported working much longer hours than those contracted and feeling unable to log off. Do they feel less able or less reluctant to take sick leave? No one wants home working to lead to the equivalent of sweatshop employment, with no boundaries between home and work and a lack of real human interactions. Some workers live alone in small homes, others in shared houses with multiple occupants. What are the long-term health effects associated with these challenges?
It is clear that we need further guidance on home-based working and close monitoring to ensure that the advantages of increased productivity—or decreased productivity—are known. How can the Government ensure that we develop and promote safe, healthy home-based working policies across our community?
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in speaking in this important debate. I was appointed Business and Energy Secretary on 13 February 2020, just as the enormity of the Covid crisis was beginning to be understood by the Government. As noble Lords know, just over a month later the UK went into its first national lockdown, with profound impacts on many aspects of our lives, including of course the world of work. My department, together with the Treasury, was of course at the centre of the Government’s economic response to the pandemic, and I have provided both written and oral evidence to the Covid inquiry through its various modules. But, having read this Select Committee report in detail, I think that it provides some really thoughtful and complementary analysis to the work being undertaken by the Covid inquiry.
When we went into the first lockdown, in my department we asked ourselves a number of key questions about the world of work in what has now become the new normal. Would working from home actually work for both employers and employees? What impact would there be on productivity as a result of home-based working, including of course the impact on the well-being of people working at home? Would we see a long-term hollowing out of city-centre businesses, which depended so much on the footfall of people going into work during the week, and what would be the impact on public transport? Would that be financially sustainable with significantly reduced work travel? A particular concern of mine was whether we would see the emergence of what I would describe as a potentially societally destabilising two-tier structure, separating those who were safe and could work at home from those who had to go into a workplace during a very difficult time.
This excellent Select Committee report—I commend and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and all noble Lords who served on the committee—has sought to answer precisely these questions, with the benefit of distance from the time of the pandemic, which of course was a catalyst for the big increase in home working. In the limited time that I have available, I want to pick up on one issue, which is productivity—a number of noble Lords have talked about this—and the impact on productivity of longer-term home or hybrid working.
I recall a conversation that I had, as we went into the first lockdown, with the UK heads of some of the major consulting and accounting firms. At the time, they all expressed real concern about the impact of longer-term home working on their employees’ productivity. I had a similar conversation a few months later with them; it suggested that the same firms were pleasantly surprised that productivity had not dropped and, in some cases, had even increased. But then, towards the end of 2020, the anecdotal view I was getting was that any gains in productivity were starting to tail off, as the benefits and synergies of collaborating in person were no longer readily available to employees.
The conclusion from this Select Committee report—forgive me, I am paraphrasing—is that when it comes to productivity the jury is still out, particularly because of the limited availability of quantitative data. I very much welcome the Government’s agreeing to the Select Committee report’s recommendations to collect data and to monitor the economic consequences of home working, including on the UK’s global competitiveness. However, I suggest that the Government need to go somewhat further in their response than just including some specific questions on home working in their periodic surveys to business.
As the Minister will be aware, the CBI, in collaboration with the London School of Economics, published a report in March this year, Remote Work and Firm Productivity. I would recommend all noble Lords to have a look at the detail of that. There is something to be said for the Government working with the major business representative organisations to periodically produce similar targeted analysis of the impact of continued home and hybrid working on the UK’s productivity levels, and, in the context of global competitiveness, to benchmark those productivity levels against what is happening in other jurisdictions around the world. I know that the Select Committee has examined productivity in the context of G7 countries, and that has been incredibly useful, but if the Government are willing to undertake further analysis in collaboration with business representative organisations, they should look at other economies as well, not just those in the G7, which have a similar structure to ours.
I agree with the Select Committee’s conclusion that we do not need any major legislative or regulatory interventions in this area. However, having the Government use their convening power to help deliver internationally benchmarked analysis on home and hybrid working—basically, which measures help in different jurisdictions and what hinders productivity—will make a real difference to both employers and employees as they navigate what we all understand is an increasingly complex world of work, not least, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, due to the rise in the use of AI in the workplace.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank our committee team and specialist adviser for their excellent work on this report, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her leadership of the committee and her introduction to this debate.
As we have heard, digital technology has grown quickly since the pandemic. This has helped organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors to find a mix of home and office working that suits employers and employees alike. It is one of the most profound structural shifts in our labour market in decades. As one witness to our committee put it, the old office is dying and the new one is struggling to be born.
There are three closely connected issues arising from this report: industrial relations, the changing role of management and the implications for productivity. It is clear that we are moving away from the cult of presenteeism and morphing towards one that values what people deliver rather than where they work.
Expectations have also changed. Many employees now see some flexibility not as an optional perk but as a normal part of their job. When that flexibility is properly agreed, it can enhance trust and improve outcomes for both sides, but, where it is imposed or withdrawn unilaterally, it risks creating tension, disengagement and conflict. Indeed, a top-down return-to-office mandate can damage morale and retention when the lived experience of employees is ignored. It was a pity that the committee was unable to hear from businesses adopting a total return-to-office mandate, despite the Herculean efforts by the committee staff to engage with them.
We heard consistently that hybrid working succeeds or fails not because of the policy itself but because of how it is managed. That success relies less on physical supervision and more on greater clarity about objectives and outputs, as well as deliberate efforts to sustain team cohesion and culture. This is a fundamental shift in management practice, and many organisations are still adapting. It is a challenge as well as an opportunity, and there is a clear need for investment in management capability.
We heard that hybrid working should be designed intelligently, so that the time together is meaningful. It should, as one witness said, “earn the commute”. If done well, hybrid working can give people more control over their work, improve job satisfaction and support more effective use of time; if done badly, it can lead to isolation and loneliness, unclear expectations and a reduction in effectiveness. There are particular risks for younger workers, where opportunities to learn informally from colleagues may be diminished.
As has been said, the committee discovered a lack of current data on productivity, but the evidence from Professor Nick Bloom showed that hybrid working has now settled into a new equilibrium—typically two or three days in the office—and was associated with some productivity gains. These gains appear to come less from direct increases in output and more from improved retention, reduced turnover and a more efficient use of time, particularly through reduced commuting. These benefits are real but not a silver bullet. They are indirect and contingent and, again, if effectively managed, they can make a positive contribution to the holy grail of economic growth.
Hybrid working can also support wider labour participation, particularly for disabled people, those with caring responsibilities and older workers. However, these opportunities are uneven, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has said. Many workers, especially on the front line, cannot benefit from location flexibility.
The committee heard about some unintended consequences. A parent working from home is physically at home but psychologically at work. The effects of those blurred boundaries are not yet fully understood.
Hybrid working is not just reshaping our workplaces but affecting our wider economy and society, in areas such as city centres, commuting patterns and transport systems, retail and hospitality, as well as highlighting the importance of good digital access, especially in rural areas.
Hybrid working is neither a cure nor a problem to be reversed. It is a structural change that brings both opportunities and risks. The task for Government is threefold, so I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. How are the Government supporting flexibility, with its benefits for individuals and the economy? How are they addressing inequalities, ensuring that those who cannot work from home are not disadvantaged? How are they supporting improvements in management and organisational practice, particularly in the public sector, because that is where success or failure will undoubtedly be determined?
How the Government answer those questions will affect not just whether hybrid working succeeds today but whether our labour market is ready for the wider changes to come. Although it was beyond the scope of our inquiry, the interaction between hybrid working and the growing use of AI will become increasingly important as we seek to build a modern, fair and productive labour market for the future.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, one of the greatest challenges that the committee faced when writing this report was the lack of good data on how we work in the UK. I would like to expand on some of the points made by our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Without knowing who works from home on how many days, we cannot look for associations between that and various different outcomes and possible effects at the individual, company or national level. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, the Office for National Statistics currently routinely collects data only on answers to the following questions: in the past seven days, have you worked from home, and in the past seven days, have you travelled to work? That means we cannot tell the difference between someone who works at home one day a week, or even less, and someone who works at home most of the time. Without this kind of data, we have to rely on proxy measures, and those suggest that home-based working is important to study.
We have all heard about the dramatic decreases in job opportunities for those early in their careers. They are often touted as a worrying sign of the effects of AI on the workplace, but—this is where I wish I could use graphics, because it is so much easier to illustrate data—the decline in adverts for jobs suitable for those just entering the workplace starts almost immediately post-pandemic, in late 2022, in data taken from job adverts across the UK, the US, Canada and Australia simultaneously. That is well before we could expect to see any effect on job hirings from AI.
In fact, a team from the University of Warwick, the LSE and the Ellison Institute has analysed data on job adverts and hirings and data on working from home and AI adoption. Although working from home and AI tend to affect the same classes of jobs, it looks as though it is working from home that has so far caused the around 5% decline in the share of new jobs going to junior staff. Why? Other research, in line with what we heard as a committee, suggests that managers are less likely to want to risk taking on a less experienced person when they are hiring for a job where there will not be much opportunity for on-the-job, in-person learning or supervision.
Clearly, understanding the effects of different working patterns on different groups of people, and how we can best encourage more of the benefits and mitigate the downsides, is vital. In their response to our report, the Government agreed, and in fact mentioned a broader evaluation of flexible-working policy changes and the effects of the new Employment Rights Act, and said that the Department for Business and Trade will be engaging with departments about data that they held and that they needed. Can the Minister give an update on this engagement and on what data is being used to perform these policy evaluations?
In our report, we pointed out the need for the ONS to collect more granular data on who is working at home and for how many days. In its response, the ONS said that:
“Any continuation or expansion of hybrid working questions on the”
opinions and lifestyle survey
“would require sponsorship from a government department”,
and that it was talking to the Department for Business and Trade about this data. Can the Minister provide any update on this?
One of the other quite dramatic shifts in recent years is the difficulty of getting people to complete surveys, such as those on which the ONS relies for this kind of data. Less than half of people asked to complete them are doing so. This increases the risk of bias in the type of person who does complete them, skewing the results. There are obviously big advantages to using data that we already hold about people, such as administrative data, and in being able to link data about the working patterns of people within an organisation with, say, the organisation’s performance, the promotion prospects and earnings of people with different working patterns, or productivity.
As a committee, we heard how other countries are able to use their linked employer and employee datasets to look at the effects of working from home, not to mention many other vital issues to do with employment, wages and productivity. But the UK, despite its world-leading national statistics and having the highest percentage of hybrid workers, does not yet have that. In response to our report, the ONS said that it was currently working on beginning this task, having already published a road map for its design in mid-2025. This road map suggested starting with the ONS working with HMRC to bring their data together with PAYE datasets. There seem to be lots of proposals and activity in this area from different organisations, and I wonder whether the Minister could confirm how the Government are progressing this.
I finally note that we have not had a National Statistician in post since early May 2025. I very much hope that this is a situation that will soon change, and that the Minister can reassure us all that data collection and analysis in this really important area is improving.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her excellent chairing of the committee. Bringing together members with different experiences and perspectives is no small task, yet she guided our deliberations with patience, skill and good humour throughout. I also thank our clerk, Dom Walsh, for his team, whose professionalism enabled us to navigate a substantial body of evidence and research, and those who gave evidence.
Having served on the committee, I can say that one conclusion stands out. The debate about working from home is too often presented as a binary choice: success or failure, productivity or inefficiency, office or home. The evidence that we received pointed to a more nuanced reality: the central issue is not where people work but how work is organised, managed and supported. Remote and hybrid working are no longer temporary responses to an emergency, such as the Covid-19 pandemic; they are now established features of the labour market. The challenge is therefore not whether hybrid working should continue but how it can operate effectively for employees, employers and the wider economy.
One aspect of the evidence that particularly struck me was the unequal distribution of opportunity. The benefits of hybrid working are most available to professional and highly skilled workers, particularly in larger cities such as London. By contrast, many people employed in healthcare, manufacturing, retail and hospitality have little access to such flexibility. We should therefore be cautious about assuming that the experiences of office-based workers reflect those of the wider workforce. Much of the evidence available came from employees rather than large employers. Employees frequently reported positive outcomes, including improved work/life balance, reduced commuting, greater autonomy and enhanced well-being. These benefits were especially cited as important for disabled people, carers and parents, many of whom found that flexible working enabled them to remain economically active.
However, the evidence also highlighted genuine concerns: social isolation, weaker workplace relationships and blurred boundaries between professional and personal life. Questions were also raised about career progression and mentoring opportunities, particularly for younger workers, who benefit from direct interaction with colleagues and managers. Microsoft reported that extensive remote working may weaken collaboration and knowledge- sharing networks.
For me, perhaps the most contested issue is productivity. Yet one of the committee’s strongest conclusions was that there is no convincing evidence that working from home either universally increases or decreases productivity. Overall, the evidence suggested that productivity depends less on location than on leadership, communication, organisational culture and effective management, as so ably highlighted by my noble friend Lady Bottomley.
However, several important questions remain unanswered. We found limited evidence on the impact of home working on consumer service outcomes, regional inequalities and equality and inclusion, and on whether remote working may conceal issues such as domestic abuse or increased caring burdens on women. As we have heard, there are also wider implications for cities, towns, transport systems and hospitality businesses. These gaps demonstrate the need for further research and better data, as articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and others. Can the Minister therefore say what plans the Government have to address these evidence gaps and improve data collection even further?
My conclusion is straightforward: hybrid working in some form is here to stay, but its success is not inevitable. Employers should retain the flexibility to determine arrangements that suit their organisations and workforce, rather than operate under a rigid mandate set out by any Government. Government should support this transition through investment in digital infrastructure, better data collection and the sharing of best practice. Can the Minister say when the Government plan to improve full access to internet connectivity, as well as to digital skills and digital infrastructure, particularly in rural and deprived areas? Indeed, in the area where I live, there is hardly any connectivity.
To conclude, further debate should focus not on where people work but on how we create productive, inclusive and sustainable workplaces, particularly as AI becomes more widespread. Therefore, can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that flexible and hybrid working do not further entrench inequalities in the workplace?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the committee for its work and its recommendations, and in particular very grateful to the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for a very comprehensive introduction.
I have some form on this. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I remember the days back in the 1980s and 1990s, when we were struggling with employers to introduce flexible working patterns. The Government were opposed to changes—they did not like it—yet we managed to persuade them that it was the right way forward. In turn, it was a way that saved the Civil Service; we had so many vacancies that we could not fill, but we retained women who were going to leave because they were offered flexible working hours, and we recruited many more women into the Civil Service because they had the opportunity of working in that way. It spread throughout the public service—and now the NHS would not operate without the kind of flexibility that was then introduced there.
There are big changes now, and it is quite interesting. I was not on the committee. Had I been, I would have raised the issue of looking at what we did here in the House. I find it amazing that we worked so well and transformed ourselves when we were working from home, and I would be interested to know whether we are keeping up to date the evidence that we produced of our working activities. When we are considering the need to decant, I wonder whether we have explored the alternative possibility of working from home and a repeat of what we did during Covid. It worked extraordinarily well indeed. We may have a hybrid variation on that theme, but I am sure it would save an awful lot of money, as is presently being talked about, being spent on restoration and renewal.
I was particularly interested in the committee’s point about productivity, like other noble Lords. We have to look at AI there, and I will be interested to see what work the Government are doing on AI and its link with home working. There are so many areas in which I think we could be using AI to assist with people working from home. There is a whole long list. It can have a role as a coach for home workers. It can be used as a costing and output companion, which is an important change and quite a worrying one. It can record the work completed and objectives achieved, assist in prioritisation of objectives and help overcome obstacles that people face. It can summarise and report, and it can identify training needs and monitor well-being as well as burnout risks. In short—and this has all come from AI—there is a whole range of activities that could be undertaken that would assist in a way that management would have been expected to do in the past.
AI would not need to be used simply as observing hours worked. We need to find mechanisms whereby we can calculate the cost of working in a more up-to-date fashion than we do at present. If you ask AI who is doing this, you will find that McKinsey, Accenture and the major companies of that ilk are doing this kind of work and producing models. They are quite expensive, but they will very much be the way that we will operate in the future. Are the Government doing work in this area and are they starting to run any experimentation to see how we can move it forward?
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on securing this debate and on her exemplary chairmanship of the committee. I also thank our excellent clerk and staff team who supported the members of the committee, on which I served, and those who gave evidence to the inquiry. It was a pleasure to be part of the committee and, above all, I learned a great deal from the witnesses who gave evidence to us. Those insights helped to produce what I believe is a balanced and thoughtful report, and I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the issues more widely today. I refer to my registered interests and note that many of the companies in which I have an interest operate in a variety of styles, from fully office-based to hybrid and home working, so I have no real dog in this fight.
To avoid duplication and to save time, I will focus on just four issues. The first is information. I love getting proper stats for things, especially important areas of policy. I continues to amaze and shock me how much money we sometimes spend on areas where we just do not have the evidence to make the decisions that we make, and when the evidence could be available at relatively modest cost. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the evidence base. Can the Minister say in summing up, or in writing, how they intend to do so? Will they consider enhancing ONS surveys or sponsoring additional ones? If hybrid working is here to stay, surely we need 21st-century statistics to understand it. At present, our data tells us far too little about how people are working, how they are being managed and what impact this is having on productivity and opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned.
The second is lack of training. One of the strongest messages we heard during the inquiry was how many organisations moved to home and hybrid working at extraordinary speed during the pandemic. They did so out of necessity, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, pointed out, and with impressive success given the scale of the challenge. But, understandably, few had the opportunity to retrain managers or redesign systems for supervising, developing and supporting staff working in different ways. In too many cases, more effort went into procuring video conference facilities than training staff, which was ironic. As a consequence, some of the difficulties that have since been attributed to home working may in fact reflect shortcomings in management practices rather than shortcomings in home working itself. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development told the committee that organisations investing in line management training reported much better productivity outcomes, while many business leaders emphasised the importance of effective mentoring and collaboration, particularly for younger workers.
Good management has always mattered, but it matters even more when teams are dispersed. I discovered this myself when in business. If we are serious about improving productivity and increasing labour market participation—for all the inclusivity reasons mentioned of trying to widen out the workforce as much as possible—for home working and hybrid systems to really work, investment in management capability should be seen not as a luxury, but an economic necessity. I therefore hope the Government will consider whether more can be done to encourage and support organisations in developing the skills to make hybrid working a real success. I am not calling for a large new spending programme; rather, I wonder whether existing schemes, such as Help to Grow: Management, could place greater emphasis on leading hybrid teams, looking at best practice that could be shared and bringing together business organisations to develop practical guidance. Such measures need not be expensive, but they could yield significant benefits for productivity, staff retention and economic growth. Will the Minister please consider this? It would take very little cost to do, just organisation.
Thirdly, I have observed that home working was popular with almost all staff, and even many people who worked hybrid wished to go fully remote, but this is an example of being careful what you wish for. Many businesspeople I know would say that any job that can be done totally remotely is more susceptible to being made redundant, either through outsourcing to a cheaper country or using AI. Expecting to be employed in an expensive part of Britian while working totally remotely is probably an unrealistic expectation for the long term.
Fourthly and finally, something that needs to be considered is the impact on young people. For school and university leavers looking for their first employment role, it is in many cases becoming much more difficult for them to integrate into a team where remote working is the norm in terms of training, team working and work ethic. Indeed, as another noble Lord pointed out, the fact that people are hiring fewer young employees as a response to them having to work unsupervised indicates that there is a problem here. Young people learn an amazing amount by mimicry—you have only to go skiing and watch a young ski class all waggling and following the instructor to see that. Without help, they cannot learn. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government will consider how to assist young people who are being disadvantaged by the reduction in office-based working?
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amazing, herculean efforts to pull together such a difficult subject. I start, however, by offering a data point that I am not sure would have surfaced in the research. I started a small karaoke chain, Lucky Voice, which I may have mentioned to your Lordships before; we have a few venues around London. A very strange thing happened in the resurgence when we came back after Covid. Suddenly, Sunday nights, which had been dead before, became extremely popular and one of our biggest nights in the week. We could only assume that it was because people felt as though it did not matter whether they had a terrible hangover when working at home. I am not sure whether that contributes positively or negatively to productivity, but I offer that small piece of data to noble Lords.
More seriously, I felt that I had to speak in this debate, for two main reasons. First, as a disabled person, working from home and the flexibility that it has given me has transformed my working life and gives me the flex and ability to manage my working in a way that I had never thought possible. I hope that, as the report so clearly lays out, we allow that for as many disabled people as possible.
Secondly, I had a very dear friend, now departed, named Dame Stephanie Shirley, who I do not think was mentioned in report but, as many people will know, really was the godmother of home working. She built a company in the late 1960s—all women, all working from home and doing things in the most extraordinary way. She showed that, with good leadership and good management, as many noble Lords have said, it really is possible to build an extraordinary business entirely with remote workers. The women working with her, the software engineers, were not doing easy-peasy software projects; they were building things such as the black box for Concorde or the Polaris submarine missile control panels. I was lucky enough to know her in her later life—she died two years ago—and she always said the same thing: “Why have we been so unimaginative in moving this on? How can it be that, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we had these new models of working that enabled new categories of people to work, and yet we have not moved it on?”
Far be it from me to go against my great heroine, but I find that somewhat challenging. Despite being disabled and having had so many improvements in my own life from working, I wish to raise two concerns. They are in the report, but I would like to double down on them. The first is the anxiety I have about creating a separate class of working citizens, particularly among the disabled population. While it is miraculous to be able to be offered the opportunity to work, we all know that your career paths are formed by taps on the shoulder, someone seeing you in a meeting or someone actively being your mentor and being able to show you the opportunities that might arise. We also know that that is far harder if you are a disabled person full stop, let alone if you are a disabled person working from home. That can also be true for many other vulnerable categories.
In this new world of data that we are going to track, I really hope that we can track the impact on disabled people of working from home particularly, to see whether there are the same career progressions and promotions and the same economic uplift as for everybody else, as they deserve.
The second area has already been mentioned, but I want to make it explicit. This is London Tech Week; the reason I am wearing this ridiculous pink suit is that I am at so many events this week—it is completely manic. The buzz and the excitement, and of course the inevitable interest in AI, are just extraordinary. The Minister was there on Monday doing a splendid job of bigging up UK tech. However, the world that is described in the report looks back at the reflections that came out of Covid and designing the world of home working from that period. We should be thinking about the world as we approach the era of AI. I do not have the answers to that, but I think it is partly what the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, was talking about on connectivity.
To me, the biggest shift is going from a world where you have a set of skills in your job to one where you are going to be expected to constantly learn, and if you are not constantly learning you will be at a disadvantage. What does that look like in a world of flexible work, and how can we encourage companies to continue to help people learn to see the opportunities around them, especially if they are not in the office? That presents a whole new set of challenges, and in my opinion there has to be a rebasing: it cannot be just about your location. It has to be about where your learning is.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the members of the committee for this timely report. As noble Lords have said, it comes at a very prescient time, not only because of challenges around AI but because employers around the country are grappling with this fundamental question: what is best for their organisations and the people who work for them?
I come to this debate from three perspectives. First, I am an employer and manager as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. Secondly, I am someone who could not easily get through the week without flexible working, balancing as I have to my responsibilities in Glasgow with my duties in your Lordships’ House. Thirdly, I am a parent of those grown-up children whom Alan Milburn has been talking about, facing challenges finding employment.
As the report acknowledges, the world of Teams and Zoom has undoubtedly opened up employment opportunities for many disabled people, but I sometimes wonder whether part of that success stems from the fact that, on a Teams call, we are all simply head and shoulders on a screen. Visible differences are less obvious, and perhaps discrimination becomes less likely when somebody’s wheelchair is not the first thing that you see. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly highlighted the challenges around Access to Work, not only the stresses and strains that the scheme is under but the whole understanding by those who administer the scheme of what is needed to support disabled people to get into and stay in work.
Home working can indeed save significant time, money and stress but, as the report acknowledges, it is not without its challenges. Not everyone has an ideal home environment; people may be sharing limited space or struggling with unreliable broadband. For others, a local coffee shop or a co-working space might seem a practical alternative, but that raises questions around confidentiality and data protection when sensitive information is handled in public spaces. As a manager, I have experienced the issue of sick leave, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, mentioned. When people say to me, “Can I work from home today because I’m not feeling too well?”, I need to know, “Can you work or are you too sick to work?” It is really hard if they are just choosing to work from home, and I struggle with the idea that you can look after small children and work at the same time.
The committee rightly highlighted concerns about isolation and the difficulties of mentoring remote workers. These issues apply to all employees, including disabled people. Disabled employees deserve not only to secure employment but to be fully integrated members of the team, with the same access to mentorship, development and informal learning opportunities as anybody else. Getting the job and proving you can do it is only the beginning. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, described much better than me, all people benefit from social interaction, workplace creativity and a sense of belonging, regardless of whether they are disabled or non-disabled.
My own experience is that people can often be more productive at home, particularly when they are undertaking tasks they understand well: work that is routine, clearly defined or familiar. However, when an organisation is seeking to challenge or change its culture, redesign services or develop new ways of working, those subtleties are much harder to absorb remotely. Some things are simply easier to understand when people are together, and Parliament is a wonderful example of that.
As many noble Lords have acknowledged, some roles cannot be fully home-based. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to the NHS. I want to give a shout-out for NHS Scotland. In remote areas such as Orkney and Shetland, it trailblazed hybrid working long before the pandemic forced the rest of the NHS to catch up. At Cerebral Palsy Scotland, while our clinical therapists do deliver virtual sessions, in-person, hands-on, multidisciplinary working has a greater clinical impact and, so they tell me, provides greater professional satisfaction.
I have also seen situations where some teams can work flexibly while others, particularly those in customer-facing or manual roles, have no option but to be present every day. If that disparity is not managed carefully and sensitively, resentment can develop. I believe it goes far deeper than just the chief people officer. It can be damaging for morale, well-being and organisational culture.
The report seeks to articulate what the Government should do. Apart from the call for more data, and I would love an answer to what constitutes “reasonable” in some of these things, I am with my noble friend Lady Manzoor: the Government should do very little. Employment law, regulations and policies are already substantial, and a top-down approach is unlikely to succeed. The last thing many businesses need is additional prescription.
The report recognises that one size does not fit all. The key is flexibility. I know how much I value having control over my working time, but employers have to be supported to determine what works best for their organisation, while employees have to understand their organisation’s goals and agree how best they contribute to achieving them. This is a matter for employers and employees together. It is not, in my view, something with which government should overly concern itself. I thank the committee once again for its report and for bringing this important debate to the House.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I join the chorus of congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and her committee for the excellent and relevant report. To inject a personal note, I am honoured and excited to be back in your Lordships’ House, this time hopefully for life.
I have had several stints working from home in my life. In the 1980s, I was a freelance photographer. My office was a desk, an electric typewriter and a phone in a bedroom. There was a slight temptation to sleep in the day. If I wanted to communicate with someone, I picked up the phone or went and saw them. There was no diversion from the internet and no email. I lived in a shared house and when work was slow, my housemates, who had jobs in offices, used to describe me as a puppy because when they returned home, I would jump up and yap at them.
This seems to be the group missing from the report: those who are not part of the gig economy, or hybrid working as we now know it, but people such as photographers, TV and production people, event organisers, art restorers, craftspeople and many others who work on projects on location but have an office at home. These are people for whom renting an office is an unnecessary expense and who like the flexibility of working from home. I suspect this is a much larger group of people than we realise, often in the multibillion-pound creative industries we hear so much about.
I also suspect that these people are mainly at the older end of average, and I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether this discrete group appears as a sector in any research. But, as the report says, for the young, we need to be careful. Working from home is often seen by employers as bunking off. Scott Galloway, the business guru, puts it bluntly:
“It’s difficult to get your butt up every morning, put on a tie, blow dry your hair, put on a pantsuit, look reasonable, get on municipal transportation and get into work. And you know what? It’s worth it, especially for young people. Before you collect dogs and kids, get into the office”.
As a teacher, I say that lockdown was a reminder of how working from home can be a chore. Zoom lessons are grim: you need the reactions and human interactions to make a lesson work.
Jimmy Carr talks about the fact that people are not just working from home, they are living from home and even ordering their food to home. There is a danger of young people at home never leaving work. They miss interactions, such as chats by the kettle. Face-to-face meetings are much more efficient, plus it allows one to read the temperature and mood of a company. Many relationships start at work; we are a tribal species.
I am also sad that Thursday nights are now the new Friday nights, because everyone works from home on a Friday. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, Sundays are now fair game as well.
I leave the last word to Susie McDonald, the CEO of the healthy relationships charity Tender, who said:
“Employers should consider that an offer to all employees to work from home may not mean freedom and flexibility to all. For those experiencing domestic abuse, working from home may mean increased and unrelenting control, violence and monitoring by their abusive partner. The workplace can be a vitally important space to seek specialist support and make decisions about the future. For victims of domestic abuse, working from home may be the very antithesis of freedom”.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I too thank our excellent chair and fellow committee members for what I found to be quite a fascinating inquiry.
The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic transformed home-based working from a relatively niche practice into a normal part of working life for millions of people. The question for our committee and the apt title for our report is: is it working? The answer is that it can work very well, but only if we pay attention to how it is managed and to who benefits from it.
One of the strongest messages I took from the evidence was that home-based working has the potential to widen opportunity. As has been said, we heard compelling evidence about the benefits for disabled people, carers and others whose participation in the labour market may previously have been limited by rigid working patterns. That was an important finding. At a time when policymakers are rightly concerned about economic inactivity and labour shortages, greater flexibility can help people remain in or return to work, and it can open doors that might otherwise remain closed.
It can also help to democratise opportunity geographically. Talent is spread across the country far more evenly than jobs have traditionally been. If used well, home-based working can allow people to access opportunities without having to move to where those opportunities are concentrated. That has the potential to benefit individuals, families and communities well beyond our major employment centres.
Having spent much of my political life concerned with equality, I have learned that the biggest barriers are often the ones nobody intended to create. That is why I found myself asking a different question throughout the inquiry, a bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. If some groups make greater use of home-based working than others, what happens to their careers over time? If women continue to carry a greater share of caring responsibilities, and therefore make greater use of flexible working arrangements, are they promoted at the same rate as those who spend more time at the workplace? Are they likely to move into leadership positions? Are they seen in the same way as men by senior managers? We do not actually know.
What surprised me about the whole inquiry was how little we actually know. Again and again during the inquiry, we came up against the same problem: a lack of robust evidence. We heard strong opinions, anecdotes and assumptions. What we do not yet have, as many have said, is enough high-quality data to understand the long-term effects of home-based working on career progression, pay and opportunity.
That matters, as others have said, because careers are not built solely through formal appraisal systems; they are built through relationships, sponsorship and informal advocacy. They are built through being known, being trusted and being remembered when opportunities arise. Many of us will recognise that some of the most important conversations in our careers happened before meetings began, after they ended, in the pub or simply because we happened to be in the room. If visibility becomes opportunity, and opportunity becomes promotion, we need to understand who benefits and who may be left behind. A policy can appear entirely fair on paper and yet produce unequal outcomes in practice.
The report highlights another crucial issue: management. Successful home-based working requires much more than laptops and video calls. It requires managers who focus on outcomes rather than attendance; who set clear expectations; who stay connected with their teams; and who build trust through regular communication, support and accountability. It also requires employers to invest in the management programmes and skills needed to lead effectively in a more flexible working environment. Many witnesses seemed to say it was more ad hoc than actual practice. Good management can make flexible working a success, but poor management will undermine it.
For me, one of the most important conclusions of this inquiry is that the debate should no longer be framed as a choice between home and office because the world has moved on now. The real challenge is to ensure that flexibility expands opportunity rather than narrows it; that it supports participation without creating new barriers to progression; and that it works not just for those fortunate enough to have access to it, but as fairly as possible across our workforce.
Home-based working is going to remain a permanent feature of modern working life for the time being. Our task now is to ensure that it delivers not just flexibility and productivity, but fairness and opportunity too.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a partner and practising solicitor with DAC Beachcroft.
What an interesting debate this has been. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I have served with her on committees before. She has great skill, and this report is a testament to her success. It is also a fact that so many of the members of her committee have contributed to the debate, which does not often happen—and it has been of great advantage. It has also been marvellous to hear from my noble friend Lord Sharma about how it all started around the time that he was in the Cabinet. That gave the whole debate a degree of context.
I very much welcome the report and the opportunity it provides to examine, as my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out right at the start of the debate, one of the most important shifts in working practice of the modern era. He is quite right to highlight the fact that we are now facing further shifts through AI, and I found his speech very valuable.
I will begin with what should be the foundational principle underpinning our approach: the Government have to take a step back and allow private sector employers to determine the working practices they believe are best for their businesses and their workforce, whether that is full time, fully remote or some hybrid arrangements in between.
As my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone pointed out, the role of the chief people officer has become so important. It was good to hear a number of views about flexible working, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe—whom I call my noble friend—that I hope that his idea of Parliament working from home full-time is not to be taken too seriously. I also enjoyed the revelations from the noble Lord, Hampton, on some of his practices in the past.
It has been an entertaining and interesting debate, but I will try to join other speakers in looking at the whole picture. Across the length and breadth of this country, different approaches work for different sectors, firms and communities. Employers have had to adapt, often at pace and at significant cost, particularly since the pandemic turned working life on its head almost overnight. What the report rightly recognises—and what the Government should take to heart—is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Employer flexibility is what matters most, and it should be remembered that businesses operating in a free market have every incentive to create the most productive workforce they can. They do not need the Government to tell them how to arrange their own affairs.
I worry that the Government seemed to have moved in the opposite direction. Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, Ministers have introduced a strengthened right to flexible working, making it considerably more difficult for employers to introduce that concept. This provision is expected to come into force in 2027, subject to consultation, yet the Government have confirmed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, pointed out in her introductory speech—that the legislation does not intend to provide a definition of “reasonableness”. One must ask: what precisely is the point? If the threshold test is “reasonableness” but Parliament declines to define what “reasonable” means, all we have done is transfer the question from the employer’s boardroom to the employment tribunal. We have not resolved it; we have simply moved the uncertainty—and at considerable cost to businesses and to a tribunal system already operating under severe strain, as many have pointed out. The report warns of the prospect of “years of litigation”, if the legislation is not defined clearly and effectively. That is not a fringe concern raised by business lobby groups; it has been raised by the Select Committee itself.
It is worth reminding the Chamber what currently exists in the ACAS code of practice. An employer may reject a flexible working request but only on one of eight specified grounds, including
“the burden of additional costs … an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff … an inability to recruit additional staff … a detrimental impact on quality … a detrimental impact on performance … a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand … insufficient work available for the periods the employee proposes to work … planned structural changes to the employer’s business”.
These are not arbitrary barriers erected to frustrate workers—far from it; they are carefully calibrated, operationally grounded reasons that reflect the genuine commercial judgments an employer must be able to make. Why are the Government seeking to erode that flexibility? What evidence exists that the current framework is insufficient to protect workers who have a legitimate case?
My noble friends Lady Manzoor and Lady Bottomley turned to productivity. Considering what effect any future changes in legislation will have on productivity must surely be a central priority for any Government serious about growth. The picture the report paints is—to put it mildly—inconclusive. Boosting productivity across the labour market is one of the great challenges of our time, but there is insufficient data. As the eminent scientist, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, asked: where is the data? Why do we not have sufficient grounds on which to base our judgments? The ONS already admits that there is insufficient data, so we look to the Minister to make sure that we have the necessary data.
Another element ran through the debate. I had the opportunity to bring forward employment legislation—it was 42 years ago, so I am sorry to raise it. I introduced a scheme called Access to Work, which we have touched on several times in this debate. With that scheme, we sought to make it possible for people with a disability—people from various backgrounds—to have the necessary equipment to enable them to work alongside people who did not have any disability. In many ways, the question that we are now asking and that this report highlights is: what are we going to do to meet the challenges not only of flexible working but of artificial intelligence? How will we make sure that young people today have the opportunities they need?
My noble friend Lord Fink raised the question of young people. Can the Minister think through the need for solutions to be found by the Government? Mr Milburn will produce his report later this year. Now with over 1 million people not in education, employment or training, there are serious problems ahead if we are to give opportunities right across the field, in particular to young people. I hope that the Minister will do more than the Government did in their very brief response to the report. I also hope that she will be able to bring us up to date with what the Government said in paragraph 9 of their response; namely, that they
“will take forward a number of priority actions, including strengthening cross-government research and analysis efforts, and exploring how best to target information and advice to line managers”.
What does all that mean? That was several weeks ago, so what has happened since? It also states that they will
“establish a more structured, official-led stakeholder group”.
Has that group now been established? If so, can the Minister give us a full report on what has been achieved so far? This report requires a much more detailed response.
If there is a case for this Select Committee to continue, it has been made. I am sorry to say this to all its members present, but I think that this work is so valuable that it needs to continue. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government, and I will address the key themes that have emerged through this thoughtful debate. I, too, start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, not only for securing the debate but for her skilful chairing of the Home-based Working Select Committee and for its report. I am also very grateful to the noble Lords on the committee who led the inquiry, many of whom are here today. It has made a valuable and timely intervention. It has improved our evidence base on this emerging area. I agree with every previous speaker that the richness of the debate today has been exemplary.
We heard compelling arguments that flexibility around when or where someone works can open up opportunities for people who may otherwise face difficulty securing a job, staying in work or progressing through their career. It can be particularly helpful for people navigating responsibilities in their home lives, whether that is caring for others or managing health conditions.
The Government recognise that the benefits of flexibility extend beyond surmounting those particular barriers at work. When implemented well, flexible working can support improved well-being, strengthen the work/life balance and enable people across the labour market to remain productive and engaged in their roles. It is also associated with tangible benefits for employers, including higher levels of staff motivation, stronger loyalty and improved retention.
That is why the Government are changing legislation to improve access to flexibility. The reforms we have introduced through the Employment Rights Act will make it more likely that flexible working requests are considered and are accepted where they are reasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, the reasonable tests have been in place for over 20 years. We will ensure that when the flexible working reforms are finalised, there will be guidance specifically for employers on the reasonable test, and that will be subject to a further public consultation before the reforms take effect.
However, it is important to distinguish between flexibility as a broader concept and the specific question of home working, where the evidence landscape is more nuanced, as many noble Lords have mentioned today. For many, the pandemic necessitated a rapid shift to remote working, and we heard the various perspectives from the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, and my noble friend Lord Monks. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, put the consequences of the changes that it has made so poetically. Pre pandemic, around 12% of workers reported working from home some or all of the time, compared with around 39% today. The scale and pace of change have inevitably constrained the depth and consistency of the evidence base, and the longer-term impacts are still being understood.
The committee’s report, and many noble Lords today, underlined the gaps in evidence on home-based working. We are committed to improving the UK’s evidence base, in partnership with other government departments and business. We agree that it is important to monitor the effects of the changing ways of working over the years ahead, through both research and data collection.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharma, stressed the importance of working with business representative organisations and other economies. We already take it into account where it is comparable. As we discussed, there are already issues with data clarity, even within the UK. That is an important point and, where it is comparable, we will look to take that forward.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fink, highlighted the importance of closer collaboration with the Office for National Statistics. We are engaging with the ONS to strengthen the evidence base, including collaboration on future data collection and research. This includes working through a cross-governmental analytical network to identify evidence gaps and develop more robust and comprehensive data over time.
The department is engaged with academics at the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence who are looking at developing linked employer/employee data in the UK. We will continue to explore opportunities to feed into this and benefit from that work. Many noble Lords mentioned the importance of that link.
While the ONS is operationally independent of the Government, the work is progressing on the linked employee/employer dataset, which links workers to their employers using pay-as-you-earn real-time information to track employers and employees over time. The ONS anticipates that a technical note and a set of exploratory statistics will be published later this year.
Many noble Lords talked about the balance that needs to be struck in making sure there is increased flexibility, including home-working arrangements, and that it works for employers as well as employees. The noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Baroness Manzoor, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set out why decisions about working arrangements should ultimately sit with employers and employees. I agree that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate. That is why the Government are focused on expanding access to flexibility where it is feasible, encouraging dialogue between employees and employers, while making sure that businesses do not have to accept requests that are not reasonable or will not work in practice.
I listened carefully to noble Lords who rightly drew attention to the potential risks of home working. Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor, Lady Scott and Lady Watkins, highlighted the potential impacts of home and hybrid working on productivity, well-being and business performance. The evidence on these factors is complex and still evolving.
We recognise that the evidence on home working and productivity remains mixed and difficult to measure, with impacts varying by role and working arrangements. As many have underlined today, there is a very important nexus with good management, and it is important to support that. As the noble Lord, Lord Fink, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly emphasised, the Government have a role. We already provide some support and training in this area, such as the Help to Grow management programme, and we will consider whether further support is needed as reforms take effect.
My noble friends Lady Nye and Lord Brooke also noted the importance of public sector practice. The line manager capability programme was developed to improve the quality of line management across the Civil Service, including managing dispersed teams. Some noble Lords highlighted the importance of health and safety. Noble Lords are aware that through the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers have the same health and safety responsibilities for people working at home as they do for other workplaces. To improve understanding, the HSE recently promoted its home worker guidance through a multichannel communications campaign, which ran for eight weeks, from February to April this year. These efforts saw a doubling in visits to the web pages based on the previous eight weeks.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Fink and Lord Hampton, highlighted the experience of young people. We know that face-to-face time can be vital for training and career progression. The changes we are making will not stop employers determining that some work needs to be done in person.
I also want to acknowledge the important contributions that highlight the distinct value, opportunities and challenges of home working for disabled people and those managing health conditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and others, drew attention to the Access to Work scheme. The Access to Work scheme can help disabled people and people with physical or mental health conditions start or stay in work. We have said that it requires some improvements to ensure that it can deliver a timely, efficient and value-for-money service. Reform in this area is complex. We are taking the time needed to consult widely, collaborate and gather evidence from disabled people, employers and representative organisations, and we are continuing to refine policy options. Ministers will announce next steps when they are fully developed in that area.
Many others have also highlighted the importance of the Keep Britain Working Vanguard phase. That is currently considering how employers and government can work together to reduce health-related economic inactivity and build healthier and more inclusive workplaces. That phase is well under way. We are working with 150 employers in 11 regions, and we have begun our work to get the Workplace Health Intelligence Unit up and running to support the outcomes of that Vanguard scheme.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Scott, highlighted the importance of digital connectivity and skills, and indeed skills in AI. The Government recognise the importance of access to a fast and reliable broadband connection and are committed to ensuring that 99% of premises receive gigabit coverage by 2032. At the end of 2025, over 1.3 million premises in rural and hard-to-reach communities had been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through government-funded programmes over years. The UK is now one of the fastest builders of gigabit-capable broadband networks in Europe.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Freeman, and my noble friends Lord Monks and Lord Brooke, highlighted the uncertain nexus with the development of AI and how the home-based and flexible working we have seen develop post Covid will interact with that. These are very important questions, and I will make sure that I raise the point about flexible working and home working with the AI and the Future of Work Unit, so that when it continues its research it can make sure that the committee’s report and the points made today are considered in future deliberations.
Noble Lords highlighted the importance of delivery of these reforms. We are continuing to work across government to make the dispute resolution system more resilient, ensuring that the measures in the Employment Rights Act can be effectively enforced. This includes a mix of measures and longer-term reform, so the system is fit for purpose for the current landscape of employment rights and equipped to respond to future changes.
A number of important questions have been raised on how the increase in home working is supported in practice, including through workplace support and guidance. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, is right to underline the importance of chief people officers, other HR professionals, and the role of line managers in considering how there might be scope for flexible working, given the organisation’s way of working, and how that is communicated with employees. We have listened to calls to engage with external stakeholders as we develop and iterate new guidance about the upcoming flexible working reforms. We have already been working to deliver this with a series of questions in our recent flexible working consultation, looking at the types of guidance line managers, employees and employers will need as these changes take effect. In parallel, officials have held 10 round-table discussions during the consultation to learn more about the guidance and resources that could be most helpful.
We will continue to build on this work, and we will establish a more structured, official-led stakeholder group. This will bring together stakeholders and business leaders to advise and support implementation while helping the Government drive culture change and shift narratives around flexible working. Once again, I would like to thank the noble Baroness and her committee for their report, and I would like to thank noble Lords for all their contributions today.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for engaging so comprehensively with the committee’s report and for some useful updates, and I am sure the committee would join me in that.
We have had an excellent debate, and not just because noble Lords all said nice things about me —although I am not complaining about that. Every contribution has been thoughtful and insightful and has added something to the work of the committee, which, as I think noble Lords can all see, worked very hard over a long period of time to produce this.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, started by reminding us of the pandemic and the incredible pivot that the workforce in this country made—indeed, it happened in this House. It is worth reflecting that that was only six years ago. In the sweep of history and the way that labour markets change, that is a very short spell of time.
What we were trying to do in this report was, in a way, to provide a comprehensive snapshot—but it is an entire album, is it not?—of where we are now. We think it will be useful to policymakers now and, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in looking not just backwards but forwards. To make a cliché, you cannot look forward unless you know where you have come from, and I think we have done a good job in saying that. I thank everyone who has taken part and I commend the report to the House.
New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gascoigne
That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee New Towns: Laying the Foundations (2nd Report, HL Paper 183, Session 2024–26).
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I say some words of thanks. First, I thank the 88 organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence, alongside the witnesses who appeared before the committee over 11 sessions. Secondly, I thank the team backstage: our excellent specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald; and the committee staff, comprising Dervish Mertcan, Emily Macpherson-Smith, Charlie Warner and Nick Boorer, who all kept the show on the road with exemplary calm. My thanks also go to our embassy staff and all those who hosted us in Copenhagen. I express my genuine and personal thanks to the Minister, her team and those in the department, who have shown deep respect to not only me but the committee and helped us on this issue and others.
Finally, and not least, I thank my colleagues on the committee, some of whom are here, not only for the invaluable support they have given me and the committee but for the fact that they have tolerated me throughout that period. They have steered us to what is, I think, a brilliant final report. I thank, if I may, Viscounts Hanworth and Younger. Their voices are missed in the committee and in this debate—particularly, for me, Viscount Younger, who was always incredibly supportive.
This is the committee’s first report of three—everyone will be delighted to know that—on new towns. Given the scale and ambition required to deliver new towns, we chose to split the inquiry into a series of modules. This has enabled us to take a more targeted and granular look at discrete elements of the overall programme, rather than trying to cram everything into a single tome. Since this first report was published in October last year, we have published our second report, on creating communities. Today, I will focus my remarks on the first report, but, worry not, at a future date we will talk about creating thriving communities. It is worth noting that our committee chose not to look at or comment on specific locations which the Government were already doing when we started our inquiry.
The report was produced by Members who looked carefully at the evidence and arrived at the same broad conclusion: this programme has huge potential but only if it is done properly. We approached the inquiry as a critical friend of the Government’s programme. We want it to succeed; indeed, that is precisely why we think it is our duty to say plainly where it is not yet on track. We would be failing in our duty to the Government and our fellow citizens if we did not hold the Government’s feet to the fire.
This is, after all, not the first time this country has set out to build new communities at scale. It is the latest chapter in a story that stretches back more than a century. The post-war new towns were, by any sensible measure, a considerable success, as the Minister can testify. They housed millions, opened up opportunity and showed what the Government could do when they combined ambition with organisation. But a good many attempts since then have been less glorious. Some never got properly off the drawing board, some delivered housing but not places, and some lacked warmth and coherence. This really is an opportunity to get it right this time.
The test of the Government on this agenda will be the towns they actually build and whether these are places in which people can live well, get around easily, find work, raise families and feel they belong. That is why the first report is about the foundations. Foundations are not the most glamorous, but they are crucial. I will start with the positives, as there are things that the Government have done in getting the ball rolling that deserve real credit.
The first is development corporations. We recommended that they should be the default delivery mechanism for new towns and large-scale settlements, and the Government have broadly agreed. They matter because they work. They are tried, tested and credible. They can assemble land, plan at scale and keep a steady hand on the tiller.
Secondly, some of the necessary legislative plumbing is now in place. The Government have moved beyond aspiration and into action. Crucially, compulsory purchase reform now includes the ability to remove hope value in the right circumstances. I know that this can be controversial, but it matters because if land values rise steeply on the expectation of future development, it becomes much harder to fund affordable housing, infrastructure and community benefit.
Thirdly, the wider devolution framework is moving towards powers for mayors and more tools to support infrastructure and regeneration. If these new towns are to succeed, they need to be tied into transport, economic strategy and local leadership. New towns simply cannot be dropped from the great administrative height of Whitehall and expected to land elegantly.
Fourthly, there has been welcome movement on patient capital. The National Housing Bank is a serious development. If this programme is to work, it needs long-term money that understands long-term returns.
Fifthly, the Government have established a new towns unit—a single front door to government—moving from broad intent to an actual process of consultation, assessment and site development.
So let me be clear: this is not a picture of total inertia. Quite a lot has happened and the Government should take credit for it. However, despite that progress there are still some serious gaps. We are two years on and the clock is ticking.
The first area is vision. We said in our report that the Government needed to retake control of the narrative. At the moment, I am not persuaded that the Government have yet supplied that vision in their own voice. Too much of the story still seems to be borrowed from the taskforce. People need to hear clearly and repeatedly what this is for. Is it about giving young families a realistic chance of a home? Is it about healthier places? Is it about joining up housing, growth and infrastructure? Is it about building communities that are greener, better connected and more affordable? Is it about creating and supporting tech centres?
Whatever the goal, whatever the mission, the Government should say so plainly, confidently and often. This should and can be a great national endeavour. It should be exciting, positive and upbeat and should be something we are proud of doing and talking about.
The second area is governance—or, as I say, “grip”. This is the gap that worries me the most, because until the Government get a real grip of the programme and own it, we are not convinced that it will ever happen. These are not five-year projects. They are not even 10-year projects. They are multi-decade undertakings.
We recommend two things: a genuinely independent central body to oversee the programme and proper cross-government leadership of sufficient seniority to hold it together over time. What we have instead is a unit within one department. I am sure that unit is useful, but a unit is not a commission, and it is certainly not a substitute for Cabinet-level leadership.
These are 60-year projects, yet at present they seem to rest heavily on the energy and commitment of a single Minister who has new towns listed as one of his 12 ministerial responsibilities. Admirable though that may be, and even with the support, dedication and passion of our own Minister, and others, to me it just does not feel enough. The vast scale of the task at hand means that it needs to be driven day in, day out, so that someone can bang the table—ideally, the Cabinet table.
Ultimately, this scheme requires the Treasury to play ball. It needs round-the-clock grip, not just to handle Whitehall but to engage local authorities and encourage the private sector and investment to help unblock issues that may arise. Our conclusion on this was blunt—because the evidence justified that bluntness —that without sustained government management and support, there is a strong likelihood of failure.
Thirdly, there is a question of the government ownership stake. We recommend that the Government should retain a small but effective ownership stake in each development corporation, because the evidence suggested that even a modest state stake could improve investor confidence and unlock cheaper longer-term borrowing. We saw this in Copenhagen—its model is not transferable in every detail, of course, but the principle was clear enough: a small public stake can create a great deal of confidence. So we appeal again, because it seems to be one of those rare policy levers that costs relatively little and achieves rather a lot in return.
The fourth is skills. We recommended that the abolition of level 7 apprenticeships for those over 21 be reversed, at least for the professions in the built and natural environment. It makes no sense to announce an ambitious programme such as this—not to mention the 1.5 million target—while quietly narrowing one of the routes into the professions needed to deliver it. Planners, surveyors, urban designers, environmental specialists and the many others on whom good development depends—we cannot just magic these people up overnight. They need training, routes in, and institutional support. The professional concern here is serious. Just when everyone agrees that the system needs more capacity, we are making it even harder for people to enter some of the very professions on which success depends.
Fifthly, there is money. Our committee asked for clarity on the financing mechanism. The Government have pointed to existing programmes, and those are welcome as far as they go; but existing programmes are not the same thing as a transparent, dedicated funding model designed around the realities of new towns: high up-front infrastructure costs, long time horizons, patient returns, land value capture, and proper stewardship. I am afraid too many of the answers in the government response amounted, in effect, to: “We will say more in the spring”. I think we have passed spring, so here is the chance.
There is one final point I want to make, because it goes to legitimacy. We said that the framework for community engagement should be set before sites were announced. That was not procedural fussiness. It was an acknowledgment of the obvious truth that people are more likely to trust a process if they believe they are part of it before the broad shape of events has already been settled. If people feel that consultation begins only once the machinery is already humming in the background, suspicion will grow; and once suspicion takes root, delivery gets slower, not faster.
I end with four requests of the Minister. First, is the Minister able to give the House a firm date for the full government response now that this consultation is over? Secondly, will the Government commit to leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority? Thirdly, will they reconsider the case for a small government ownership stake in each development corporation? Fourthly, will they, even at this stage, exempt the built and natural environment professions from the changes to level 7 apprenticeship funding?
We remain a critical friend of this programme. Get the vision right, the governance right, the skills right and the money right, and this generation of new towns could stand in comparison with the great achievements of the post-war era. Get them wrong, and we will not have built a new generation of communities at all. We will simply have extended a long and, alas, increasingly British tradition of promising much, consulting often and delivering less. We can do it.
I thank the Minister and all those who will take part in this debate, including my fellow committee members, and I look forward to all their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, this new town agenda is very exciting. It is a chance for us to create new, high-quality communities for the 21st century, where the quality of people’s lives will be boosted by their surroundings: places where people can live, work and play and, above all, be inspired. But this agenda needs to be driven. It needs dedication and a degree of government urgency, which seem to be currently lacking.
I am now convinced that success in politics is not so much about what you believe in and more about whether you are able to get things done. But such is the risk aversion within Whitehall and Westminster, that it is now only by exceptional enthusiasm and drive that you can achieve anything. So a forward-looking agenda such as this new town agenda needs inspirational leadership and the will to drive it forward. It is not a controversial agenda. Who can deny that we need new housing? Who can deny that we need well-built, carbon-neutral communities, surrounded by a renewed and biodiverse environment? Who can deny that we need communities that bring people together, provide a high percentage of affordable housing, and make people proud to live there? We need communities with the best health and education services, sports facilities, and places to meet and chat for all ages.
What do the Government need to do to make this happen? They have to commit leadership and inspiration to overcome local opposition—or, actually, to inspire such opposition to see the very real possibilities for a good life for their children or for themselves in their old age. The message is that high-quality design and well-built buildings with trees and green spaces might even be better than the farmland that they had before—and I speak as a farmer who loves our countryside.
If some of today’s voters do not get it, I point out that our committee recently conducted a school survey on new towns, and 900 children responded; that is the highest response rate the engagement team has ever had. I can report that if today’s voters are less than enthusiastic, tomorrow’s voters are hugely enthusiastic and have loads of ideas about creating communities fit for tomorrow.
Turning to the economics, I am afraid that, even in these stringent times, the Government have to commit money, either through investment or, preferably, by loan guarantees. The land value uplift and the initial sale of houses will not provide enough to get these inspirational schemes off the ground—although, after 20 to 30 years, the development corporation should be able to turn a surplus. I am afraid that the Treasury has to get involved, and, if PPP is the latest answer for translating vision into reality, go for it. It is not like previous PFI hospitals and so on, which were derided for lumbering future generations with debt. These new town projects will turn a profit. It is just the first 30 to 40 years that are difficult; everyone benefits, eventually.
More than the Treasury, the Government need to get all the departments on board. Before the first house can be sold, there have to be good medical services available, so that is the Department of Health; good educational services, schools and perhaps even a training college, so that is the DfE; good local transport that fits into national transport, so that is the DfT; and good police and fire services, so that is the Home Office. There also has to be a commitment from the private sector that it can provide the shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants that will make these places truly vibrant—that is the PPP bid. All this investment commitment has to be spelled out by our political leaders ASAP. It is not complicated; it just needs vision and commitment.
There is nothing in our report to frighten the horses—in fact, quite the opposite. Everything we say looks forward in a positive way, yet, in spite of this agenda being a manifesto commitment, two years after the election the Government’s response to our report was at best lukewarm. However, I am pleased to say that, in recent weeks, there has been a bit more spark coming out of the department, so let us hope that this develops into a veritable blaze of enthusiasm and drive.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I pay credit to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the work that they did in this committee and continue to do. It is very helpful. I share the view of my noble friend and regard myself very much as a friend of the New Towns Taskforce and the new towns programme, albeit occasionally a critical one, as the Minister knows well.
I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, particularly over the past decade as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. It is on Cambridgeshire that I want to focus for a couple of minutes. I was the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire for 18 years and for the past decade I have been working in the development forum and continue to live in the area. Thirty years ago, we started building Cambourne on a greenfield site to the west of Cambridge. To put it all in context, in the Cambridge region we are building out Cambourne. If Cambourne North is in the local plan, which I expect it to be eventually, it will be 25,000 homes. We are building out Northstowe, which is anticipated to be 10,000-plus homes. We are building out Waterbeach, north of Cambridge, on the A10 between Cambridge and Ely, which is expected to be 11,000 homes. Last week, the Government, in the shape of Homes England and the Hill Group, secured the project for the build-out of Cambridge East, which people think of as Cambridge airfield, which will be more than 10,000 homes.
So we have our own new towns programme. None of these are in the Government’s new towns programme. Cambridgeshire is planning to deliver 55,000 homes through its own new settlements, without the benefit of the new towns programme in any formal sense. However, the Government are planning a development corporation. I look forward to a debate on the statutory instrument about that, and we will discuss it then.
We have learned a few things. First, in Cambourne, we are 30 years on but only now are we going to get east-west rail with a railway station. Secondly, at Northstowe, we learned the lesson that we needed some of that infrastructure. The Conservative county council built the guided busway and a Conservative Government built the A14 rebuild, but that did not mean that Northstowe happened when we expected it to and to the extent that we thought it would. If I had been standing here in 2007, I would have said, “In 10 years’ time, Northstowe will be established. It will have 2,500 homes and be planning to go to 10,000”. Ten years on from 2007, there were in fact no homes in Northstowe. Why? Because in October 2008 the market collapsed.
It is so important that, as my esteemed friend Oliver Letwin said in his review, we understand the central importance of markets and of ensuring that we respond to them, not least in where we locate new towns and where there is market demand and viability, and in the diversity of tenure in those towns, so that we can see these properties go into the market. It is only those market sales that are fundamentally going to fund the affordable and social housing that we want to be a significant part of this.
We have learned some of those lessons and they are being incorporated into the new towns programme, but we should not imagine that we are operating by looking back to 1945 and then imagining what we are going to do in 2026. No. We can see now in Cambridgeshire what the lessons are. Some of them have been painful ones, but we have none the less come through and are succeeding. I want the Government—we will have this debate another time—to recognise that Cambridgeshire is doing the things that the Government want it to and does not need the new towns programme to make it happen, but that we can learn from it in encouraging other places to do so.
I have two more points. First, yes, there should be development corporations, but in some places they should be mayoral development corporations with tax increment financing, as well as loans from Homes England and the Government. Secondly, when my noble friend’s committee comes to look at the future and community engagement, it should remember that it is the young people today—probably teenagers—who will be moving into many of these homes. Let us engage them too, not just the communities that already live there.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee report, particularly its emphasis on an infrastructure-first approach, mandatory basic design standards and capturing land values. I welcome the overall direction set out in the Government’s consultation on the draft new towns programme and policy, particularly the emphasis on high-quality place-making, environmental sustainability and the integration of green infrastructure. However, I will press the Government to be bolder in three key areas. I apologise to the Minister for repeating points that I made during the Social Housing Bill, but a good story can take repetition. I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission.
The first point on which I encourage the Government is that the scale of the new town programme presents a significant opportunity to embed trees and woods as fundamental components of place from the outset. Trees and woods are just as vital basic infrastructure as road, rail, schools and doctors’ surgeries. Trees reduce heat effect and promote nature-based solutions to flood risk, both within urban developments and surrounding them, by slowing the flow of water. They support biodiversity and measurably promote health and well-being. They fulfil a government commitment that there would be an accessible green space within 15 minutes’ walk for urban dwellers. They improve air quality, sequester carbon and promote community cohesion. If there were no trees, you would have to invent them.
Recent research has shown that where green infrastructure is introduced too late in the development process, opportunities are reduced and outcomes are less effective. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about the Camborne development, and it absolutely embraced the concept of developing green spaces as part of its master plan right from the start. However, it is slightly unfortunate now that East West Rail will go straight through one of the major nature reserves created in that process. That also outlines the need for integrated and comprehensive master planning.
The use of trees and woods to help shape the layout and identity of a development needs to be part of landscape-led master planning and not retrofitted. There are already examples of good practice. The Marston Vale community forest, for example, has agreed with all its surrounding local authorities supplementary planning documents so all substantial developments will have at least the minimum level of tree canopy cover. I encourage the Government to think of that as something that they might make obligatory.
I also urge the Government to use the opportunity of the new towns programme to promote modern construction methods, particularly the Government’s timber and construction road map. The benefits of using wood in construction include replacing carbon-intensive steel and concrete, and locking up carbon for the entire life of the building in addition to the growth period of the tree. Timber is also a natural insulator. However, the Government also need to ensure that long-term and reliable signals are given to the timber growing and processing markets to ensure that as much timber used in construction as possible is produced here in the UK—80% is currently imported. There is a clear policy need there. We want local homes made with local timber providing local jobs.
Will the Minister ensure that recent announcements about fire safety for high-rise buildings do not inadvertently stifle wood-based houses that do not represent a fire risk if they are below three storeys? Some 91% of Scotland’s houses are timber-framed and I have not detected a higher level of house fires in Scotland, despite some of the other habits of the Scots—I can say that because I am one. Here in England, currently only 9% of homes are currently being built with timber.
I have one last point to make, if I may. The Select Committee called for a national spatial strategy and it is good that the land use framework has now been published for England. The approach to new town location needs to use the principles and practice of the land use framework, and the increasing wealth of data that underpins it, to help guide new town locations away from sensitive areas that are inappropriate and towards those most suited, using the whole range of the environmental, social and economic data. That is what a land use framework is for. It would be absolutely first class if the new towns’ planning and policy used that and acted as an exemplar for how a land use framework approach can work.
I know that there will be later comments on particular locations in the programme for the new homes, and I hope that the House will note that the reason for some of the sensitivities about some of the locations is that because a land use framework approach has not been used. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, in 2004 the Labour Government were struggling with a shortage of homes and rising housing costs, so I offered some published advice on how, for example, they could initiate the construction of a new garden city by the Thames. I provisionally called it Thames Reach—it was in the Ebbsfleet area—as an example of how it would be easier to get consent to something bold and visionary which included infrastructure and formed complete communities than to just keep on adding piecemeal to existing communities who often did not like the stresses and strains that could create. It did not appeal to the then Labour Government, but the incoming Conservative Government later took other advice and decided on Ebbsfleet Garden City, and that is now well under way, with a development corporation to do it. I am very pleased they did it, and I think it is an example of what can be achieved.
Like others in this debate, I would like to see more passion, enthusiasm, urgency, force and development. The Government made a mighty promise to our country of 1.5 million houses in five years. The last Government were achieving around a million; they hit their targets. The Labour Opposition were quite right to say that they were not that stretching, and they came up with this stretching target. But I have got news for Ministers: two years in, they are miles off the pace. They will not even hit the pace of the outgoing Conservative Government. They need to make a big shift in what they are trying to achieve.
I would also like to hear more about how it can be based in some fine traditions of British development, and the formation of British communities. Someone I revere as one of our great entrepreneurial designers, Josiah Wedgwood, in some ways started it with above-average housing for the skilled workers that he recruited, trained, and wished to retain, in a village called Etruria. What a good idea to give them an improvement in living standards as part of the package.
That was carried on by other great entrepreneurs and rich families. Go and visit Bournville and Port Sunlight; are Ministers not proud of these? They were great achievements, with wonderful architecture, countryside in the development, people with gardens, sporting facilities that they could use, communal facilities that they could go and enjoy, a community that was built around a place of work that they were proud of, and that paid them decent wages and looked after them. This spread out more widely, as we have heard from others, in post-war developments, when you had the development of garden cities, with Welwyn and so forth taking off. So there is a tradition that we can build on, and the Government could show more passion, and a bit more continuity in British life, drawing on the things we can be proud of: how normal skilled workers got access to much better housing, started to live in communities and then went on to become owners, which is also extremely important for democratising capital and spreading wealth more widely.
The Government should also look at what works to break down resistance, because we have a paradox in public opinion in this country. The public think that we should build more houses, but most of the public do not think any of the houses should be built anywhere near them. I represented a constituency which always had one of the fastest rates of new house building foisted on it by successive Governments: the constituency of Wokingham. So successful was it that they kept having to break bits off from my constituency to form new ones, as we had so many people coming into the patch. I had to be the chief nimby, but you can see that I am not a nimby. We need to build houses. Construction is a great thing. But I did have to represent the perfectly genuine view that, if you took too many of our green fields and green gaps between settlements, you destroyed the community and changed the nature of the fabric of the local area. We were being asked to take too much, too quickly.
I also shared the view that we were not getting access to the funds and projects for the infrastructure. We were inviting people in when there was not electricity, water, enough pipes to take the dirty water away, or enough drained land, so the new houses flooded almost as soon as people moved into them. It was a disgrace that we did not plan it properly.
So I urge the Government to put more emphasis on new cities and towns, to accept the conclusions of the report that you plan them in advance and, above all, that you put the facilities in first.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his report. I recognise the need for new homes, and the role that new settlements can play in that provision. The question, of course, is where those new settlements should be located, and on what scale.
I must declare not only the interest which I have placed in the register—that I am chairman and have other positions in the Countryside Alliance—but also that I live near Newmarket, on the edge of a proposed new development on the east Cambridgeshire/west Suffolk border. My views, therefore, may be discounted because I have an obvious interest and concern, but I hope to make a case against this proposed settlement on its merits.
It is called Forest City, an oxymoron reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “Sweet sorrow” or Milton’s “Darkness visible”. It is a privately promoted scheme which first emerged, to general astonishment, last year. It is not a new town; it is a city which would apparently comprise 400,000 homes across 45,000 acres, and that scale is extraordinary. It is twice the size of Bristol with about the size of Birmingham’s population, itself the second largest city in the country. It is a larger city than Manchester and would be one of the most significant urban developments in modern British history. It is more than three times the size of the largest new town, Milton Keynes; five times the size of the second largest, Telford; and—I am sure of interest to the Minister—10 times bigger than Stevenage and 20 times bigger than Welwyn Garden City.
It is located entirely on beautiful countryside in the Stour valley—countryside which I would argue merits protection in its own right—and is in stark contrast to the kind of lower-grade or degraded countryside, or even areas of green belt that are degraded, which we should not be worried about in protecting beautiful countryside. Significantly, this is also grade 2 farmland. The Government’s own Land Use Framework for England says that its analysis
“aims to reduce trade-offs by avoiding land use change on our best agricultural land”.
That reflects the National Planning Policy Framework, which directs development away from the best and most versatile agricultural land, including grade 2 land.
This proposal sits alongside—directly proximate to—the development which my noble friend Lord Lansley already described: an increase of 50,000 homes in Cambridge that would double its size. On one side of the A11, in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—your Lordships can see the logic in this—there would be a massive new development and then on the east side, in entirely open countryside, not on the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there would be another which would completely dwarf it. The proposal seems confused about whether it is a potentially complementary scheme or one which is an alternative.
This area of the country, Cambridgeshire, is water stressed. It is one of the driest areas of the country. Where would the water come from? The scheme’s promoters say that there would be a cost in providing it of £4.3 billion. Where would the transport infrastructure be funded from? The scheme’s promoters say that roads, railway, et cetera would cost some £16 billion—there is no proper railway connection to this development. The local Member of Parliament, Nick Timothy, estimates the infrastructure costs alone as some £60 billion and the state subsidy required to build this development as between £80 billion and £110 billion, because there is a proposal that the housing would be all affordable and that the plan would eliminate land value receipts, which normally fund roads, schools and hospitals. What that suggests is that this proposal is pie in the sky.
There may be an attractive brochure with pictures of beavers and bison, people swimming in lakes, and gobbledygook such as “symbiotic mobility” and “synchromodality”. There may be doublespeak about villages being integrated in the urban fabric of the city, but the truth is that there will be concrete where there was countryside, highways where there were hedgerows and more housing where there are hamlets. This is a utopian delusion. It is not a serious proposal, but the effect on the local community of promoting it is serious, because it creates anxiety and property blight. Of course, it also has an effect on the existing proposed development nearby in Cambridgeshire.
The Government have said that they will consider any reasonable alternatives to the recommended locations of their new towns. I note from the Financial Times on 29 May that the Government said that they had received the proposal that I am referring to and that they were reviewing it. I would encourage the Government to rule out this absurd proposal as soon as possible to eliminate the tremendous uncertainty that is created by it, to recognise that it is a folly and not a serious or sensible proposal, but one that is creating enormous worry to a huge number of local residents.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very welcome debate not only because it is the opportunity to discuss our first report of the Built Environment Committee, but also because it is turning into a very interesting debate in all manner of ways. I pay tribute to our excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is extremely enthusiastic, focused and gets the best out of witnesses. He said, quite rightly, that from the start the committee recognised that we were dealing with a very big idea when we addressed new towns: an idea that needed big presence and big energy but required more than a single report and a deep dive. I will focus on a few key issues that illuminate why we have come to our conclusions. The report was innovative, but it also had quite an unusual context. It was modular but it was also very dynamic, because policy was being made by the taskforce while we were doing our work. When the list of sites was revealed, it was good to see that the committee and the taskforce shared so many assumptions about the power of place-making.
A second characteristic was that new towns are sui generis. They take decades to deliver. Ministers are very lucky to see spades in the ground, but they depend on the keenest foresight, whether about energy or food or nature security or extreme weather. The watchword that runs through this is “stewardship”, and therefore development corporations are the right vehicles. Mayoral development corporations will be tremendously useful and have great potential, and they have the capacity to be responsive and flexible and far-sighted as the realities change.
Finally, it was good to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said: this is indeed policy embedded in living history, because the reality of the post-war vision is ever before us. People are still living in those settings. There was a certain wistfulness in our committee that we did not have the heroic vision and the post-war imperatives of rehousing, which were profoundly necessary but also popular. They came with the patient capital investment that paid off, and we make the same case under different conditions, because our housing emergency cannot be encapsulated easily in a single vision, although that is what we called for. It has a dual purpose: addressing our structural housing shortage and unlocking growth. Both are essential, but how do they relate to each other? Where is the novelty? Where is the innovation going to come from?
The challenge is even greater because we are in the foothills of our own industrial revolution, more unpredictable than those that have shaped our world. The uncertainty is compounded by very different financial conditions, labour markets, skill needs and changes in demography. All of that affects housing aspiration and provision. The new towns sit alongside massive new investment in social housing and are faced with all the familiar problems that frustrate every development in the country.
I have two questions for the Minister. Can she say something this evening on the contribution that new towns will make to the overall housing targets? There is still a bit of confusion about that. Can she bring us up to speed with the work of Homes England and the National Housing Bank, because they are so critical to getting things done?
On changes about national mood, people rightly expect to be involved in decisions about their future; they were not in that frame of mind in 1947. It makes a single conversation about new towns and their purpose more difficult and more contentious. Seeing is believing, but the work of the taskforce has been under the radar, and it means the field is wide open to vocal opposition—hence our insistence that there must be a bigger voice and greater visibility to bring the credibility and energy that they demand.
We can do it, because there are new tools and new opportunities. Place-making can bring consciously together landscape, character, sustainability, infrastructure and quality of life. Many of our recommendations audit the unique opportunities that new towns present to think creatively, with private and communal space, conservation, connectivity, integrated services, community ownership, design codes and innovative funding. Those factors will create the new models for the future.
In evidence to the committee, the Minister was a formidable advocate for new towns, and every Minister who came before us was very focused—and the taskforce is extremely impressive. But our final, substantive conclusion is that something above and beyond is needed if the programme is to achieve momentum and public confidence. In short, we think there needs to be a bigger, bolder, simpler story told about the new towns. I am afraid that I am going to use the word “vision”. It is easy to be sceptical, but we need something that captures desire as well as imagination. It does nothing less than shine a clear light on the nation’s hopes for the next generation, giving security and opportunity in housing and jobs. It requires commanding leadership, which is why we suggest a single, powerful voice, a Cabinet Minister with this as their sole priority, and not an internal unit but a cross-government agency with power to advise and pull heads together and deliver. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Andrews and so many other noble Lords in this debate. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the Built Environment Committee for making today’s debate possible. Its report is essential reading for all of us who want to see the Government’s promise of a new generation of new towns delivered, because that commitment to housebuilding in general, and new towns in particular, is both urgent and essential.
I will use my time today to focus on one of the new proposed town locations, that of Tempsford. It is in a part of Bedfordshire that I know well, having been born just down the road in Great Barford. Noble Lords will be forgiven if they are not immediately able to find Tempsford on a map, but its role in the Second World War, revealed in the recent opening of the archives, means that it certainly deserves to be better known. Indeed, the noted local historian Bernard O’Connor has described RAF Tempsford as “Churchill’s most secret airfield”. Between 1942 and 1945, the Special Operations Executive, along with RAF’s 138 and 161 special duties squadrons, operated from Tempsford. It was the primary departure point for hundreds of secret agents and for supplies for resistance movements across occupied Europe. It is particularly notable how many of those agents were women who, like those at nearby Bletchley Park, were unable to tell their own stories, so we should do so now.
Today, Tempsford finds itself at a crucial intersection of future road and rail development to support the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, making it the flagship growth corridor site. It would be a town of around 100,000 people, anchored in a new railway station connected to all points of the compass. As the New Towns Task Force said, it is “unique opportunity” and a
“standalone new town in Tempsford provides an opportunity for exemplar development that could provide excellent housing and employment opportunities for people in the region”.
The Government have said that they want to have at least three of these new towns under way by the time of the next election. Meeting that target, as has already been said, will require a level of co-ordination that, frankly, government is not always used to across so many different disciplines: rail, flood mitigation, utilities, land assembly and master planning. There is a traditional government approach that seems to insist on doing everything sequentially rather than simultaneously. I am afraid that I do not believe that we have time for such an approach. To that end, could the Minister please update the House on what progress has been made on land assembly for this project?
As mentioned, it is right that the new rail station is the anchor to this new town. It is in a unique position, connecting the millions of people who live along the east coast main line to new, exciting opportunities provided by the east-west rail line. It is where scientists from Cambridge will train change trains to meet investors in Leeds, or where families travelling from Edinburgh can connect to visit Universal’s United Kingdom Resort just down the road. Last week, the Government announced very welcome investment for the Wixams railway station to support Universal’s project. Can the Minister update the House on when we might be able to get a similar announcement for Tempsford railway station? There has been some suggestion that, on current plans, work would not start until 2030.
For Tempsford and other 21st-century new towns to be delivered, this Government need to be as bold and decisive as their post-war 1945 predecessor. I have no doubt that Ministers embrace that challenge. I simply urge the Government to hear that the clock is ticking, move at speed and learn the lessons of past Governments’ successes and failures, from London 2012 to HS2. We know what works: publish a single delivery plan, with one named senior responsible owner; align every workstream on one timetable; and confirm the delivery vehicle and early funding. A new town cannot be built by rail planners, flood engineers and landowners all working to different speeds, plans and managers. New towns such as Tempsford need one delivery body, one timetable and one accountable Minister to grip it.
In conclusion, the committee describes itself as a “critical friend” to the new towns programme. I look forward to following its ongoing work and to more debates such as this, because we need this work to succeed. The potential is huge and exciting. Let us get going with this most strategically important site and, in doing so, we can honour the legacy of legendary female secret agents, such as Vera Leigh, Violette Szabo and Noor Inayat Khan, in the names of the glorious parks and boulevards of the new Tempsford. This project can be so much more than simply new homes; Tempsford new town can be at the frontier of an ambitious, better-connected, future-facing Britain.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which is the location of two of the new towns: Tempsford and a large chunk of the extension to Milton Keynes. Following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I must also declare it is the location of the Forest of Marston Vale. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the committee for an excellent—and very much a foundation—report. I am aware that some of the comments made today will probably be covered in future reports.
I have some experience of new towns, not only Milton Keynes but Washington, where my father was from. When I first used to visit it as a child to see my grandmother, it was a small pit village. Now that village and several of the other small pit villages are transformed into a new town of 70,000 people, which I saw grow up through my childhood. The Government are proposing several new towns; I do not intend to comment on the ones in central Bedfordshire, although I would describe many as urban extensions rather than new towns, but I want to reflect on the principles of good urban planning. As the report makes clear, we need a compelling vision. We need to define a clear purpose and we need infrastructure first—not just roads, but utilities and soft water—and that means getting a whole group of different entities to work together.
That is very important, but I want to raise a couple of things that are also important. First, new towns should have a heart, a soul and a purpose. In our ancient cities, you can often think of that as a cathedral, so what will be the centre of a new town? What will give it its purpose? A town centre that works is not just about shopping; it is about community and where people come together. That gives it its identity. Secondly, the new towns should not just be urban commuter dormitories. They need to be living places where people can sleep, but where they also have the opportunity for work and for leisure—I recognise that there will still be commuting.
These days, we talk often about these wonderful towns. Milton Keynes is on my doorstep, but we are not going to be able to build new towns with that low a density in the south-east because there physically is not the space. We need to think about the density of new towns. That means a different sort of new town, not one based on road and car, but based much more on public transport, walking and cycling. That requires much higher densities. When I go to Europe, I see towns that are successful because the coffee shop has 12 apartments above it and the shop has apartments above it. People do not need to get into the car to go to the town centre. I have a curious question that I keep asking people: why is it not economic to build underground car parks in town centres in the UK whereas it seems to work pretty much everywhere else in Europe?
The Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned Cambourne, where I did a fair amount of door knocking in the recent elections. It is a wonderful housing estate, but I would not class it as a town. It did not have a proper town centre; it is something that evolved—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me on that. We need to, and can do, better.
Several noble Lords mentioned design. I raise the fact that our population is changing. When we designed new towns in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was for a much younger, much more family-orientated population. We have shifted. We have a much older population, and we will need to deal with many more singles and couples, not large families, and that is a different sort of town.
A number of noble Lords mentioned funding. If we are going to deliver infrastructure up front, we need to do that, but it is not just about cash flow. Realising the land value will not be as simple as it used to be in the past because many of these areas already have embedded value that we need to think about.
We talked about development corporations in the report, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords raised whether we can have mayoral or council-led development corporations, because if it is just in one area, that is a potential other avenue that we should look at.
A number of noble Lords raised leadership and speed. Clearly, many of us fear that this will spend more time in the planning than in getting bricks on the ground. If we are going to do this, we need real leadership and we need to get on with it. Again, I refer to Central Bedfordshire: Wixams station is going to be delivered 20 years after it was originally envisaged. That is not good enough for these new towns.
Finally, we need to consider the wider area. New towns can have a major impact on the other settlements nearby and could denude them, their town centres and so forth. We need to reflect on that as well. With that, I welcome my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley to the Front Bench.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this very helpful debate and to the Built Environment Committee for its extensive work behind this second report on new towns. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his chairmanship of the committee and the insights he has provided, and all the speakers in the debate.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course support the delivery of new homes, especially for young people, and we recognise the Government’s manifesto commitment to build new towns. In 2019, we promised to build 1 million new homes, and we did, on time and as promised by 2024, and there was a little thing called a pandemic in the middle. However, we want to ensure new homes are built in the right places and that housing delivery is, first and foremost, driven by a genuine “brownfield first” approach, as we have emphasised time and time again in your Lordships’ House.
The second and latest report highlights the need for long-term, compelling vision from central government both to inspire the design and place-making of these new towns and to manage their operational delivery, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to when he said that we needed drive, leadership and inspiration. However, “vision” is not a word that is frequently associated with the current, caretaker Prime Minister, let alone “long-term”—I think the noble Baroness should perhaps have a word with him and pass on some of her enthusiasm and energy. Indeed, the Government have already cut five of their 12 proposed new towns, with just seven remaining, and with the withdrawal of proposals for Adlington in Cheshire, all the proposed new towns are really urban extensions rather than stand-alone towns.
We cannot think about new towns in the abstract. Our islands have a long history and every corner has its own local identity, heritage and traditions that should not be steamrollered over by Whitehall. People do not want greenwashed housing estates concreting over their countryside, as my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs articulated clearly earlier.
The second report recommends that these new towns should not repeat past mistakes. We particularly welcome the recommendation for design standards to be supplemented by locally sensitive design standards for each individual new town. We must follow the evidence collected by those such as Create Streets of what ordinary passers-by and residents like to see, and to empower small and medium-sized builders.
As the Government’s former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, said during the last general election:
“We’re always hearing that people want tree-lined streets of townhouses, so that’s what we’ll build”.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, could give some advice there around the trees. What has changed? The previous Government started this work to overcome the design disconnect, yet the Labour Government began by deleting references to aesthetics and beauty in the National Planning Policy Framework, despite the hard work undertaken by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.
We began the work for Greater Cambridge, too, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referenced, as a potential urban extension. I remember some of the early work through Homes England. The current Conservative Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is committed to growth and to tackling long-standing infrastructure challenges, yet Greater Cambridge seems absent from the Government’s latest plans. Local planning authorities and developers benefit from certainty and long-term consistency from central government. Can the Minister update the House on what plans the Government now have for Greater Cambridge specifically?
The committee’s latest report recommends that the Government move beyond short-term metrics to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual new towns, and the second report makes clear the need for government to bring in private investors from the start. Good design with inclusive infrastructure built in from the start saves money in the long term, and this needs to be measured effectively, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson reminded us. What steps are the Government taking to cut the public costs of design and delivery phases?
Making the design and delivery more straightforward for planning authorities and developers requires leadership from the Government, rather than letting public money be used to pay for external consultants with no clear outcome or action in sight, or for endless public consultations, which, in reality, do not take people’s views on design seriously.
As the Social Housing Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how social housing will form part of their seven remaining new towns. How will new social homes be allocated and how will new tenants be prioritised?
We are seeing the consequences of a Government who came to power without a plan and a party which campaigned on the promise of attractive homes only to backtrack a few weeks in, which pledged 1.5 million new homes that may take more than five and a half more years to deliver, and which promised a new generation of new towns only to cut five of the 12 proposed, with Tempsford being the only genuinely new town. The Government did not, and still do not, have a long-term vision, let alone one backed by a thought-through plan for delivery.
I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and, looking ahead—if indeed housing delivery remains a priority for this Government—when this House can expect the Government’s full response to the committee’s latest report on creating communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her place and congratulate her on her elevation to the Front Bench. I very much look forward to working with her.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this important debate and for the Built Environment Committee’s extensive work. With 88 witnesses, and overseas visits to make sure that they were looking at what was happening overseas, it went above and beyond—well done. Its inquiry looked at the opportunities and challenges of delivering a whole new generation of new towns.
The Government are absolutely committed to building the next generation of new towns, using all the powers at their disposal, to make sure that we hand the keys of not just home ownership but new communities to thousands of families. The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. Starting with the first designated new town of Stevenage in 1946—a place very close to my own heart, as all noble Lords know—it transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned surroundings. I take this opportunity, as it is probably the only discussion we will have about new towns before its birthday, to wish my town a very happy 80th birthday, which falls in November.
The 32 communities that the post-war new towns programme created are now home to millions of people, including some of the Members who have spoken in today’s debate. The Government will continue to invest in the regeneration of the existing new towns and to learn from them. My clear view is that we need to inspire a new generation with the excitement and energy that the previous generation of new town pioneers, such as my parents, had when they came to live in those places. The words from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about young people’s engagement very much hit home with me—they are music to my ears, as we have to inspire young people.
Let us not forget about the nimbys that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, spoke about. When my town was proposed, a meeting was held at the town hall. It was then a town of 6,000 people, and it was proposed to grow to 60,000 people. When Lord Silkin turned up to talk to Stevenage people about it, they took the name off the station and put “Silkingrad” there instead—so distressed were they at the thought of this expansion.
It is important to learn the lessons from previous large-scale expansions as we embark on the newest chapter. The Government are committed to building on that legacy. The Government agree with the committee that it is important that new towns are grounded in a clear and ambitious vision. As emphasised in the Government’s recently published consultation, new towns represent a bold and nationally significant response to address the range of challenges caused by housing constraints and the need to power up our economy and to build the foundations of strong communities: health, education and family formation. We want to make sure that we are building not only new homes but new communities that can support people throughout their lives.
Building at scale is central to this strategy. Each new town will deliver at least 10,000 homes, with many expected to exceed this number, including all seven priority areas being assessed. This scale enables efficient land use, supports supply chain growth and innovation, and creates the conditions for integrated infrastructure and high-quality place-making. It provides the opportunity to deliver affordable housing and social infrastructure in a way that smaller sites cannot, ensuring that new towns provide homes for everyone to live in.
As emphasised by both the committee and the New Towns Taskforce, success will ultimately depend on strong and co-ordinated government intervention. The Government have been clear that delivery must be infrastructure-first and design-led—including through master planning—and enabled by effective delivery vehicles such as development corporations where appropriate. Clear expectations and support will be set to achieve high quality place-making with long-term stewardship, to ensure that new towns are built to last.
The Government recently carried out a public consultation on the proposed new towns programme, which built on the findings of the taskforce report in September 2025. It invited views on how the new towns programme will operate, how new towns could be delivered and planned, and the proposed approach to design and planning policy. I really appreciated the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about design.
Of course, new towns present a great opportunity to have innovative design both in town planning and housing design. The consultation sought views on the Government’s offer to locations, including a strategic environmental assessment which assesses the impacts of the programme in proposed broad locations, the cumulative effects of the development of new towns and practical methods of mitigation and monitoring. As part of that consultation, we set out our plan to take seven locations forward through the proposed programme. These represent the strongest proposals, which are capable of collectively unlocking hundreds of thousands of new homes and improving people’s quality of life in communities across the country. This includes Tempsford, Leeds South Bank, Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield, Thamesmead, Manchester Victoria North, Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc in south Gloucestershire, and Milton Keynes. These proposals are at different stages of maturity and require different types of intervention and support, including blends of public and private capital, to achieve their potential.
The Government therefore intend to tailor their approach to each new town, with a view to making as much progress as possible, as fast as possible. They identified a number of locations that were also found to meet the objectives and are propositions that represent credible development opportunities. However, we have decided to prioritise places initially where a new town’s intervention can have the most transformative impact.
None the less, there is strong potential to deliver housing in places that have not been included in the proposed programme. I will come to Cambridge in a minute, but this is particularly true of Plymouth, which presents a unique opportunity to bolster the UK’s defence and security sector. Plymouth will require special consideration and its own bespoke financial support package to unlock its potential as a centre of excellence in naval technology. Plymouth council is already making huge strides in the regeneration of the town centre, and its MPs have worked with Government to secure defence spending for British technology. So, we must ensure that housing does not act as a barrier to growth. The Government have pledged to do whatever it takes to get spades in the ground in at least three of the new towns by the end of this Parliament and to progress many more, if possible.
As part of our offer to new towns locations, we will ensure that we work across government to deliver this vision, including through the industrial strategy; invest millions of pounds of public and private sector funding into excellent local facilities, including GP surgeries, schools, libraries, transport and the environment; work with world-class architects, planners and urban designers to plan each town with its own character and distinct, unique identity; and ensure that the state’s full planning powers are available to rapidly build new homes and all the necessary supporting infrastructure, including clean energy and digital infrastructure. I very much agree with the strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on infrastructure and housing being developed together.
New towns are just part of a wider effort from government to get Britain building again. Over the last two years, the Government have delivered fundamental reform to the planning system. Last December, we saw the culmination of this, with the Planning and Infrastructure Act and a definitive overhaul of the National Planning Policy Framework, which will boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These strong foundations will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding in the years ahead.
Let me be clear: we must get Britain building again. To respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most that has ever been invested. Our new towns programme will benefit through that as well. We want a huge percentage of that to be social housing, so we will support social housing in our new towns as well. We must crack on with this, and our new towns programme will be a step change in the delivery of the new homes our country so desperately needs.
I turn to some of the very specific points that were made during the debate. As he was the chair of the committee, I will pick up the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, first. He asked me about a firm date for the delivery of the government response. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation. It is very important that we fully understand the range of views on the programme, including its environmental impacts. We will publish a full response to the recommendations later this year, once the necessary environmental assessments are completed and final decisions have been made on locations, which are still to come.
The noble Lord asked me about leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority, and that was a point echoed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Doyle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning are key sponsors of the programme and have the power of Cabinet committee structures behind them to co-ordinate requirements for new towns across Whitehall. Delivering the next generation will be a cross-government effort and central to the Government’s agenda not just in terms of building homes but to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. We will work closely with other departments and regulators to ensure that new towns are factored into their future spending plans, ensuring that they have the utilities, transport and social infrastructure needed for those communities to survive.
The third question from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, was about a small government ownership stake in each development corporation, and our ambition is that the new towns model will transform the way that large settlements are delivered, providing long-term certainty to attract sustained investment. We are assessing delivery vehicle models for each place, and the proposed government offer in the consultation sets out that, subject to the needs of each location, locations taken forward as new towns will benefit from resource and capital funding. That could include a mixture of grant and financial instruments, including equity investment, loans and guarantees to develop town-wide master plans, comprehensive infrastructure, and the establishment and maintenance of governance structures. I will make some further points about funding, but that is key to where we are.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked me about level 7 apprenticeship funding, and I absolutely take the point. We recognise that level 7 apprenticeships have been a valuable route into professions, but we are reforming funding to prioritise young people entering the labour market and targeting support where it has the greatest long-term impact. We are investing £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and expand alternative routes into planning through pathways to planning, public practice and the new planning careers hub. That will all be valuable in terms of the issues that the noble Lord raised.
I think place-making was raised by almost all noble Lords who spoke but particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Redwood, and Lord Jamieson. We have been very clear: we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns have to be well-connected, well-designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset.
Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we intend to incorporate the proposed place-making principles in the draft new towns planning policy, and the place-making principles should be reflected in town-wide master plans and design codes. As part of the government offer, we are proposing to establish a new town place review panel, which will provide impartial advice to delivery bodies and planning authorities, as well as practical design and place-making guidance for new town delivery.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned community engagement, and this is a very important part of the work that we have been undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, in particular, mentioned it, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, both referred to consultation with young people. They are going to be the people living in these towns, so that is vital. We are very clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development and effective community engagement is key to creating connections between existing and new residents and helping to build successful places. That does not avoid all the nimby-type approaches, but it will help to engage people in making sure that they have a say in how these places are designed.
The Government will continue to engage with communities, local authorities, delivery bodies and investors to make sure that the new towns are planned and delivered to the highest standards. The recent consultation was the first of many opportunities for people to shape the design and creation of this new generation of new towns.
The points that were made around development corporations are really important, because the governance of how these new developments are taken forward is critical. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised issues around this. We are assessing delivery vehicle options for each proposed location to make sure that they are best placed to drive forward each of those places. That includes development corporations where appropriate, but our consultation was clear that different propositions will require different types of intervention. Delivery vehicles beyond development corporations could include, for example, legal partnerships that pool land and delivery expertise between public and private bodies.
The points about mayoral development corporations are well made. The visionary devolution framework we are delivering now will, I hope, deliver at the pace that I know noble Lords are keen to see. I was grateful for the support for mayoral development corporations when we took the devolution Bill through.
On wider issues around funding for new towns, the funding required in this spending review period will vary according to the needs of the locations chosen. The precise funding offer will be confirmed once final decisions on the programme have been taken. That will be when the new towns draft programme consultation is closed and all strategic environmental assessments are complete.
Delivery will be backed by funding across the landmark housing programmes, such as the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme, hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of grant from the national housing delivery fund, and additional capital funding managed by the National Housing Bank. We will continue to consider the ways in which private finance can support delivery, alongside government funding and intervention. We will be working with other departments and regulators to ensure that they are factoring new towns into their spending plans for the future to make sure that that comes forward from all departments across government.
We have heard much about the lessons to be learned from previous generations of new towns from the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and others. In establishing this programme, we are inspired by the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour Government, who kick-started the ambitious programme for building new towns in the years and decades following the Second World War, as well as subsequent waves of new towns. However, we recognise that we must learn the lessons.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as he went through his committee meetings on this, was keen to make sure that we understand the lessons from previous generations. These often emphasised car-based commuting and did not always embed long-term stewardship, which is vital, into their development. We have seen huge success in places such as Milton Keynes, which has demonstrated the potential of well-planned developments to create thriving communities and act as a catalyst for economic growth, which is certainly what we want to see. A long-term stewardship model for new towns must be in place from the outset, including clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets over the long term.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised Cambridge. I was grateful to him when I carried out a visit, on which we went to Waterbeach, Cambourne and Northstowe. It was great to visit that area and see how lessons have been learned. The Government published a response to the consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on 3 June. Cambridge is not part of the new towns programme and the development corporation will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, including for the new towns programme. Unlocking barriers to growth in Greater Cambridge was an immediate priority of this Government. The Housing Minister wrote to local leaders in August 2024, setting out the Government’s early approach to working with local partners to support the sustainable growth of Cambridge. I look forward to working further on this. I know that the noble Lord will be keeping a careful eye on what we are doing in Cambridge.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about housing targets. The Government consider that the delivery of housing in new town proposals should contribute towards meeting the identified housing need of relevant strategic and local planning authorities in all instances. We are clear that that is the way we are approaching the housing that will be included in new town developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about land value capture. The lessons we learned from previous new towns suggest that the long-term increase in the value of land can be successfully captured and reinvested as the town continues to grow. We will be taking that into account as we work through the governance and funding structures for our new towns.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on Forest City. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, but this is not part of our new towns programme or proposal.
In closing, I say that our vision is certainly to create the towns of the future with place-making at their heart, shaped by what worked in the past, informed by what did not work in the past, and inspired by a bright future for those who will live in, work in and visit this new generation of new towns for a new age. I am grateful for the thoughtful scrutiny and contributions in this debate. I assure all those who have participated that the concerns they have raised will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our work on new towns, turning the taskforce vision into delivery on the ground.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank the Minister. I know the hour is late, so I will not respond to all the points that have been made, but it has been a fascinating and energising discussion from across the political divide. I am grateful to the Minister for some of the additional information that the Government have given us. We are not quite there yet, but let us see what later in the year delivers us.
The Minister knows all too well that I am a fan of hers—I genuinely am—but in this debate, I feel that we are missing an opportunity. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who used the words “commanding leadership”. We all know that life is short and political life is even shorter—my own experience in No. 10 can testify to that. Governing is not easy. Even things that should be simple and quick are not. I feel that we are slightly taking our foot off the pedal here. For example, we keep hearing—the Minister said it again—references to the Cabinet committee. My own experience of Cabinet committees, great as they are, is that they are slightly reactive and not proactive. That is a slight concern that we have.
We have used the language of being a “critical friend”, and we remain so. In today’s debate we have heard about energy, keenness, leadership, passion, urgency, boldness, decisiveness, passion and urgency from my noble friend Lord Redwood in a brilliant speech. The clock is ticking but, as I said, we can do it.
In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the Minister said that something was music to her ears. I want to give her an example. This morning, I dropped my kids off and it was a bit fraught, we were all running behind, my wife was at work, and I was thinking, “I’ve got this debate”. I dropped the kids off, jumped in the car and the music blasting out was from that well-known architect and urban planner, Elvis Presley. The lyrics of the song—and I end with this—were:
“A little less conversation, a little more action, please”.